Distance models reveal biases associated with passive trapping methods for measuring wild bee abundance

IF 2.4 3区 环境科学与生态学 Q2 ECOLOGY
Codey Mathis, Darin J Mcneil, Melanie Kammerer, Jeff L Larkin, Michael J. Skvarla
{"title":"Distance models reveal biases associated with passive trapping methods for measuring wild bee abundance","authors":"Codey Mathis, Darin J Mcneil, Melanie Kammerer, Jeff L Larkin, Michael J. Skvarla","doi":"10.3389/fevo.2024.1380622","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"There is overwhelming evidence of declines in native bee populations and therefore a need for increased monitoring to track these declines and assist in conservation and restoration efforts. Bees can be sampled non-lethally through visual surveys (e.g., distance transects) or lethally through active (e.g., hand netting) or passive (e.g., traps that lure insects from afar) methods. These lethal methods suffer from imperfect detection that is difficult to account for and can confound inferences about habitat characteristics. Additionally, evidence suggests that lethal sampling methods can even invert habitat quality patterns such that high-quality sites yield fewer individuals and low-quality sites yield more individuals.To study potential biases associated with imperfect detection, we used hierarchical density estimation with visual surveys to estimate density of bees within 40 young forest patches across Pennsylvania, USA. We surveyed bee communities non-lethally using visual surveys and lethally using blue-vane traps and bee bowls every two weeks between May and September 2019. We collected data on blooming flowers, vegetation structure, and weather during times of survey.We found that bee densities estimated from distance transects had a positive relationship with floral resource availability. In contrast, abundance measured via bee bowls and blue-vane traps had no relationship, or sometimes even negative trends with habitat quality, including floral resource availability. Raw bee counts within 2-m of the transect always correlated with modeled densities, showing that some methods do not share the biases of attractive traps.Our study demonstrates that failing to account for imperfect detection can impact the interpretation of pollinator surveys and adds to a growing body of literature that acknowledges the value of distance sampling for insects like bees to better understand species’ habitat needs and to monitor populations for conservation.","PeriodicalId":12367,"journal":{"name":"Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3389/fevo.2024.1380622","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

There is overwhelming evidence of declines in native bee populations and therefore a need for increased monitoring to track these declines and assist in conservation and restoration efforts. Bees can be sampled non-lethally through visual surveys (e.g., distance transects) or lethally through active (e.g., hand netting) or passive (e.g., traps that lure insects from afar) methods. These lethal methods suffer from imperfect detection that is difficult to account for and can confound inferences about habitat characteristics. Additionally, evidence suggests that lethal sampling methods can even invert habitat quality patterns such that high-quality sites yield fewer individuals and low-quality sites yield more individuals.To study potential biases associated with imperfect detection, we used hierarchical density estimation with visual surveys to estimate density of bees within 40 young forest patches across Pennsylvania, USA. We surveyed bee communities non-lethally using visual surveys and lethally using blue-vane traps and bee bowls every two weeks between May and September 2019. We collected data on blooming flowers, vegetation structure, and weather during times of survey.We found that bee densities estimated from distance transects had a positive relationship with floral resource availability. In contrast, abundance measured via bee bowls and blue-vane traps had no relationship, or sometimes even negative trends with habitat quality, including floral resource availability. Raw bee counts within 2-m of the transect always correlated with modeled densities, showing that some methods do not share the biases of attractive traps.Our study demonstrates that failing to account for imperfect detection can impact the interpretation of pollinator surveys and adds to a growing body of literature that acknowledges the value of distance sampling for insects like bees to better understand species’ habitat needs and to monitor populations for conservation.
距离模型揭示了与测量野生蜜蜂数量的被动诱捕方法有关的偏差
有大量证据表明本地蜜蜂数量在减少,因此有必要加强监测,以跟踪这些减少的情况,并协助开展保护和恢复工作。可以通过目测(如距离横断面)对蜜蜂进行非致命采样,或通过主动(如手网)或被动(如远距离引诱昆虫的诱捕器)方法对蜜蜂进行致命采样。这些致死方法存在检测不完全的问题,很难加以解释,并可能混淆对生境特征的推断。此外,有证据表明,致死取样方法甚至会逆转栖息地质量模式,使高质量的地点产生较少的个体,而低质量的地点产生较多的个体。为了研究与不完全检测相关的潜在偏差,我们使用分层密度估计法和目测法来估计美国宾夕法尼亚州 40 个幼林斑块中的蜜蜂密度。在 2019 年 5 月至 9 月期间,我们每两周使用视觉调查对蜜蜂群落进行一次非致命性调查,并使用蓝色叶片诱捕器和蜜蜂碗对蜜蜂群落进行一次致命性调查。我们发现,通过距离横断面估算的蜜蜂密度与花卉资源可用性呈正相关。相比之下,通过蜜蜂碗和蓝风向标诱捕器测量的蜜蜂数量与栖息地质量(包括花卉资源可用性)没有关系,有时甚至呈负相关趋势。我们的研究表明,不考虑不完善的检测可能会影响授粉昆虫调查的解释,而且越来越多的文献承认对蜜蜂等昆虫进行距离取样的价值,从而更好地了解物种的栖息地需求,并监测种群数量以保护物种。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution
Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution Environmental Science-Ecology
CiteScore
4.00
自引率
6.70%
发文量
1143
审稿时长
12 weeks
期刊介绍: Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution publishes rigorously peer-reviewed research across fundamental and applied sciences, to provide ecological and evolutionary insights into our natural and anthropogenic world, and how it should best be managed. Field Chief Editor Mark A. Elgar at the University of Melbourne is supported by an outstanding Editorial Board of international researchers. This multidisciplinary open-access journal is at the forefront of disseminating and communicating scientific knowledge and impactful discoveries to researchers, academics and the public worldwide. Eminent biologist and theist Theodosius Dobzhansky’s astute observation that “Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution” has arguably even broader relevance now than when it was first penned in The American Biology Teacher in 1973. One could similarly argue that not much in evolution makes sense without recourse to ecological concepts: understanding diversity — from microbial adaptations to species assemblages — requires insights from both ecological and evolutionary disciplines. Nowadays, technological developments from other fields allow us to address unprecedented ecological and evolutionary questions of astonishing detail, impressive breadth and compelling inference. The specialty sections of Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution will publish, under a single platform, contemporary, rigorous research, reviews, opinions, and commentaries that cover the spectrum of ecological and evolutionary inquiry, both fundamental and applied. Articles are peer-reviewed according to the Frontiers review guidelines, which evaluate manuscripts on objective editorial criteria. Through this unique, Frontiers platform for open-access publishing and research networking, Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution aims to provide colleagues and the broader community with ecological and evolutionary insights into our natural and anthropogenic world, and how it might best be managed.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信