Pan Trapping and Malaise Trapping: A Comparison of Bee Collection Techniques in Subalpine Meadows

Diversity Pub Date : 2024-09-02 DOI:10.3390/d16090536
Nicholas Anderson, Steven Petersen, Robert Johnson, Tyson Terry, Jacqueline Kunzelman, David Lariviere, Val Anderson
{"title":"Pan Trapping and Malaise Trapping: A Comparison of Bee Collection Techniques in Subalpine Meadows","authors":"Nicholas Anderson, Steven Petersen, Robert Johnson, Tyson Terry, Jacqueline Kunzelman, David Lariviere, Val Anderson","doi":"10.3390/d16090536","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Public lands, managed for multiple uses such as logging, mining, grazing, and recreation, also support vital environmental services like wild bee pollination. A trending decline in wild bees has heightened interest in documenting these key pollinators in their native habitats. Accurate assessment of pollinator community diversity is crucial for population monitoring and informing land management practices. In this study, we evaluate the efficiency of Malaise traps and pan traps in sampling wild bees over three growing seasons in subalpine meadow communities in central Utah. Sixteen trapping sites were established, each with a Malaise trap and an array of blue, white, and yellow pan traps, nine at each site. Weekly collections were made through summer months and a comparison of their effectiveness in capturing bee abundance and species richness was made. Malaise traps captured significantly greater abundance of bees on average, though this was species-dependent. Malaise traps were especially effective at capturing Bombus spp. and larger species. Pan traps were generally more effective with smaller species such as Hylaeus spp. White pan traps outperformed yellow and blue pan traps in terms of abundance and only yellow pan traps in terms of richness. Both methods contributed unique species to the overall collection effort, suggesting that a combination of trapping methods provides a more comprehensive understanding of bee communities. Species accumulation curves indicate that species existing within the community went unencountered in our samples and that more time or perhaps additional methods could aid in best describing the entire community.","PeriodicalId":501149,"journal":{"name":"Diversity","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Diversity","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/d16090536","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Public lands, managed for multiple uses such as logging, mining, grazing, and recreation, also support vital environmental services like wild bee pollination. A trending decline in wild bees has heightened interest in documenting these key pollinators in their native habitats. Accurate assessment of pollinator community diversity is crucial for population monitoring and informing land management practices. In this study, we evaluate the efficiency of Malaise traps and pan traps in sampling wild bees over three growing seasons in subalpine meadow communities in central Utah. Sixteen trapping sites were established, each with a Malaise trap and an array of blue, white, and yellow pan traps, nine at each site. Weekly collections were made through summer months and a comparison of their effectiveness in capturing bee abundance and species richness was made. Malaise traps captured significantly greater abundance of bees on average, though this was species-dependent. Malaise traps were especially effective at capturing Bombus spp. and larger species. Pan traps were generally more effective with smaller species such as Hylaeus spp. White pan traps outperformed yellow and blue pan traps in terms of abundance and only yellow pan traps in terms of richness. Both methods contributed unique species to the overall collection effort, suggesting that a combination of trapping methods provides a more comprehensive understanding of bee communities. Species accumulation curves indicate that species existing within the community went unencountered in our samples and that more time or perhaps additional methods could aid in best describing the entire community.
盘式诱捕和马来诱捕:亚高山草甸蜜蜂采集技术比较
为伐木、采矿、放牧和娱乐等多种用途而管理的公共土地也为野生蜜蜂授粉等重要环境服务提供支持。野蜂数量呈下降趋势,这提高了人们对记录这些关键授粉者在其原生栖息地的情况的兴趣。准确评估授粉者群落多样性对于监测种群数量和指导土地管理实践至关重要。在本研究中,我们对犹他州中部亚高山草甸群落三个生长季节中马拉伊斯诱捕器和平底锅诱捕器采样野生蜜蜂的效率进行了评估。我们设立了 16 个诱捕点,每个诱捕点有一个 Malaise 诱捕器和一系列蓝色、白色和黄色的盘式诱捕器,每个诱捕点有九个。在夏季的几个月中每周采集一次,并比较它们在捕获蜜蜂数量和物种丰富度方面的效果。Malaise 诱捕器平均捕获的蜜蜂数量明显更多,但这与物种有关。Malaise 诱捕器在捕获蜂属和大型蜂种方面尤为有效。就丰度而言,白盘诱捕器优于黄盘诱捕器和蓝盘诱捕器,而就丰富度而言,只有黄盘诱捕器优于蓝盘诱捕器。两种诱捕方法都为整个采集工作贡献了独特的物种,这表明结合多种诱捕方法可以更全面地了解蜜蜂群落。物种积累曲线表明,群落中存在的物种在我们的样本中没有被发现,更多的时间或更多的方法可以帮助我们更好地描述整个群落。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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