The relative performance of sampling methods for native bees : an empirical test and review of the literature

Lade...
Vorschaubild
Dateien
Prendergast_2-1u14coi99pig84.pdf
Prendergast_2-1u14coi99pig84.pdfGröße: 1.87 MBDownloads: 250
Datum
2020
Autor:innen
Prendergast, Kit S.
Dixon, Kingsley W.
Bateman, Philip W.
Herausgeber:innen
Kontakt
ISSN der Zeitschrift
Electronic ISSN
ISBN
Bibliografische Daten
Verlag
Schriftenreihe
Auflagebezeichnung
DOI (zitierfähiger Link)
ArXiv-ID
Internationale Patentnummer
Angaben zur Forschungsförderung
Projekt
Open Access-Veröffentlichung
Open Access Gold
Sammlungen
Core Facility der Universität Konstanz
Gesperrt bis
Titel in einer weiteren Sprache
Publikationstyp
Zeitschriftenartikel
Publikationsstatus
Published
Erschienen in
Ecosphere. Wiley. 2020, 11(5), e03076. eISSN 2150-8925. Available under: doi: 10.1002/ecs2.3076
Zusammenfassung

Many bee species are declining globally, but to detect trends and monitor bee assemblages, robust sampling methods are required. Numerous sampling methods are used, but a critical review of their relative effectiveness is lacking. Moreover, evidence suggests the relative effectiveness of sampling methods depends on habitat, yet efficacy in urban areas has yet to be evaluated. This study compared the bee community documented using observational records, targeted netting, mobile gardens, pan traps (blue and yellow), vane traps (blue and yellow), and trap‐nests. The comparative surveys of native bees and honeybees were undertaken in an urbanized region of the southwest Australian biodiversity hot spot. The outcomes of the study were then compared to a synthesis based on a comprehensive literature review of studies where two or more bee sampling methods were conducted. Observational records far exceeded all other methods in terms of abundance of bees recorded, but were unable to distinguish finer taxonomic levels. Of methods that captured individuals, thereby permitting taxonomic identification, targeted sweep netting vastly outperformed the passive sampling methods, yielding a total of 1324 individuals, representing 131 taxonomic units—even when deployed over a shorter duration. The relative effectiveness of each method differed according to taxon. From the analysis of the literature, there was high variability in relative effectiveness of methods, but targeted sweep netting and blue vane traps tended to be most effective, in accordance with results from this study. However, results from the present study differed from most previous studies in the extremely low catch rates in pan traps. Species using trap‐nests represented only a subset of all potential cavity‐nesters, and their relative abundances in the trap‐nests differed from those in the field. Mobile gardens were relatively ineffective at attracting bees. For urbanized habitat within this biodiversity hot spot, targeted sweep netting is indispensable for obtaining a comprehensive indication of native bee assemblages; passive sampling methods alone recorded only a small fraction of the native bee community. Overall, a combination of methods should be used for sampling bee communities, as each has their own biases, and certain taxa were well represented in some methods, but poorly represented in others.

Zusammenfassung in einer weiteren Sprache
Fachgebiet (DDC)
570 Biowissenschaften, Biologie
Schlagwörter
bee assemblages; biodiversity; honeybees; monitoring; native bees; sampling; surveys; urbanization
Konferenz
Rezension
undefined / . - undefined, undefined
Forschungsvorhaben
Organisationseinheiten
Zeitschriftenheft
Datensätze
Zitieren
ISO 690PRENDERGAST, Kit S., Myles MENZ, Kingsley W. DIXON, Philip W. BATEMAN, 2020. The relative performance of sampling methods for native bees : an empirical test and review of the literature. In: Ecosphere. Wiley. 2020, 11(5), e03076. eISSN 2150-8925. Available under: doi: 10.1002/ecs2.3076
BibTex
@article{Prendergast2020-05-19relat-49719,
  year={2020},
  doi={10.1002/ecs2.3076},
  title={The relative performance of sampling methods for native bees : an empirical test and review of the literature},
  number={5},
  volume={11},
  journal={Ecosphere},
  author={Prendergast, Kit S. and Menz, Myles and Dixon, Kingsley W. and Bateman, Philip W.},
  note={Article Number: e03076}
}
RDF
<rdf:RDF
    xmlns:dcterms="http://purl.org/dc/terms/"
    xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
    xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
    xmlns:bibo="http://purl.org/ontology/bibo/"
    xmlns:dspace="http://digital-repositories.org/ontologies/dspace/0.1.0#"
    xmlns:foaf="http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/"
    xmlns:void="http://rdfs.org/ns/void#"
    xmlns:xsd="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#" > 
  <rdf:Description rdf:about="https://kops.uni-konstanz.de/server/rdf/resource/123456789/49719">
    <foaf:homepage rdf:resource="http://localhost:8080/"/>
    <dcterms:abstract xml:lang="eng">Many bee species are declining globally, but to detect trends and monitor bee assemblages, robust sampling methods are required. Numerous sampling methods are used, but a critical review of their relative effectiveness is lacking. Moreover, evidence suggests the relative effectiveness of sampling methods depends on habitat, yet efficacy in urban areas has yet to be evaluated. This study compared the bee community documented using observational records, targeted netting, mobile gardens, pan traps (blue and yellow), vane traps (blue and yellow), and trap‐nests. The comparative surveys of native bees and honeybees were undertaken in an urbanized region of the southwest Australian biodiversity hot spot. The outcomes of the study were then compared to a synthesis based on a comprehensive literature review of studies where two or more bee sampling methods were conducted. Observational records far exceeded all other methods in terms of abundance of bees recorded, but were unable to distinguish finer taxonomic levels. Of methods that captured individuals, thereby permitting taxonomic identification, targeted sweep netting vastly outperformed the passive sampling methods, yielding a total of 1324 individuals, representing 131 taxonomic units—even when deployed over a shorter duration. The relative effectiveness of each method differed according to taxon. From the analysis of the literature, there was high variability in relative effectiveness of methods, but targeted sweep netting and blue vane traps tended to be most effective, in accordance with results from this study. However, results from the present study differed from most previous studies in the extremely low catch rates in pan traps. Species using trap‐nests represented only a subset of all potential cavity‐nesters, and their relative abundances in the trap‐nests differed from those in the field. Mobile gardens were relatively ineffective at attracting bees. For urbanized habitat within this biodiversity hot spot, targeted sweep netting is indispensable for obtaining a comprehensive indication of native bee assemblages; passive sampling methods alone recorded only a small fraction of the native bee community. Overall, a combination of methods should be used for sampling bee communities, as each has their own biases, and certain taxa were well represented in some methods, but poorly represented in others.</dcterms:abstract>
    <dc:contributor>Menz, Myles</dc:contributor>
    <void:sparqlEndpoint rdf:resource="http://localhost/fuseki/dspace/sparql"/>
    <dc:creator>Prendergast, Kit S.</dc:creator>
    <bibo:uri rdf:resource="https://kops.uni-konstanz.de/handle/123456789/49719"/>
    <dc:contributor>Bateman, Philip W.</dc:contributor>
    <dspace:hasBitstream rdf:resource="https://kops.uni-konstanz.de/bitstream/123456789/49719/3/Prendergast_2-1u14coi99pig84.pdf"/>
    <dcterms:title>The relative performance of sampling methods for native bees : an empirical test and review of the literature</dcterms:title>
    <dc:rights>Attribution 3.0 Unported</dc:rights>
    <dcterms:isPartOf rdf:resource="https://kops.uni-konstanz.de/server/rdf/resource/123456789/28"/>
    <dc:language>eng</dc:language>
    <dc:creator>Menz, Myles</dc:creator>
    <dcterms:rights rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/"/>
    <dcterms:hasPart rdf:resource="https://kops.uni-konstanz.de/bitstream/123456789/49719/3/Prendergast_2-1u14coi99pig84.pdf"/>
    <dcterms:available rdf:datatype="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#dateTime">2020-05-28T09:29:26Z</dcterms:available>
    <dc:creator>Bateman, Philip W.</dc:creator>
    <dc:creator>Dixon, Kingsley W.</dc:creator>
    <dcterms:issued>2020-05-19</dcterms:issued>
    <dc:contributor>Dixon, Kingsley W.</dc:contributor>
    <dspace:isPartOfCollection rdf:resource="https://kops.uni-konstanz.de/server/rdf/resource/123456789/28"/>
    <dc:date rdf:datatype="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#dateTime">2020-05-28T09:29:26Z</dc:date>
    <dc:contributor>Prendergast, Kit S.</dc:contributor>
  </rdf:Description>
</rdf:RDF>
Interner Vermerk
xmlui.Submission.submit.DescribeStep.inputForms.label.kops_note_fromSubmitter
Kontakt
URL der Originalveröffentl.
Prüfdatum der URL
Prüfungsdatum der Dissertation
Finanzierungsart
Kommentar zur Publikation
Allianzlizenz
Corresponding Authors der Uni Konstanz vorhanden
Internationale Co-Autor:innen
Universitätsbibliographie
Begutachtet
Ja
Diese Publikation teilen