Codey Mathis, Darin J Mcneil, Melanie Kammerer, Jeff L Larkin, Michael J. Skvarla
{"title":"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","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":"{\"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}","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}
Distance models reveal biases associated with passive trapping methods for measuring wild bee abundance
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.
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.