Relative bee abundance varies by collection method and flowering richness: Implications for understanding patterns in bee community data
Relative bee abundance varies by collection method and flowering richness: Implications for understanding patterns in bee community data
复制标题
DOI：
10.1002/2688-8319.12071
复制
发表时间：
2021-04-01
影响因子：
2.9
通讯作者：
Hahn, Philip G.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Kuhlman, Marirose P.;Burrows, Skyler;Hahn, Philip G.
最近野生蜜蜂数量的减少导致了对蜜蜂群落的保护行动和监测的增加。盘式诱捕器是一种常用的蜜蜂种群监测采样方法，由于其效率和成本低。然而，潜在的偏见固有的不同的采样技术可能会导致误导性的蜜蜂群落的特征跨越空间和时间。在本文中，我们研究了如何蜜蜂群落采样使用盘陷阱和空中网的季节性变化，如果他们受到花卉资源的可用性。我们发现了强烈的季节性变化的丰度，但不是丰富的，蜜蜂捕获锅陷阱。值得注意的是，我们在春季的几周内捕获了最少的蜜蜂，当时大多数开花植物物种都在开花，这表明花卉资源的可用性影响了诱捕器的捕获。我们还比较了模式的蜜蜂丰富的锅陷阱，空中网捕捉。蜜蜂丰富度在锅和网呈正相关，但相对丰度在锅和网样品中占主导地位的不同蜂属。此外，大多数属减少，在平底锅增加花卉的丰富性，但模式混合网。当使用存在/不存在的数据，而不是丰富的，社区组成是更相似的网和泛诱捕蜜蜂社区和变化不大，大幅跨越花卉丰富度梯度。总的来说，这些差异导致采样大不相同的蜜蜂群落组成的锅陷阱与网，特别是当使用基于丰度的方法来表征蜜蜂群落。通过研究多年来密集的季节性采样的植物和蜜蜂群落，我们记录了潜在的陷阱与常用的方法来采样蜜蜂群落。我们建议，泛诱捕和空中网提供类似的估计蜜蜂物种丰富度和社区组成时，使用存在/不存在的数据，但从业者应谨慎解释泛诱捕蜜蜂丰度数据，特别是当比较蜜蜂群落植物群落可能不同的网站之间。
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.