Pollinator sampling methods influence community patterns assessments by capturing species with different traits and at different abundances
In order to synthesize changes in pollinating insect communities across space and time, it is necessary to understand whether, and how, sampling methods influence assessments of community patterns. We compared how two common sampling methods—yellow combined flight traps and net sampling—influence ou...
| Main Authors: | , , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Elsevier
2021-12-01
|
| Series: | Ecological Indicators |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1470160X21009493 |
| _version_ | 1818401860325736448 |
|---|---|
| author | Amibeth Thompson Mark Frenzel Oliver Schweiger Martin Musche Till Groth Stuart P.M. Roberts Michael Kuhlmann Tiffany M. Knight |
| author_facet | Amibeth Thompson Mark Frenzel Oliver Schweiger Martin Musche Till Groth Stuart P.M. Roberts Michael Kuhlmann Tiffany M. Knight |
| author_sort | Amibeth Thompson |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | In order to synthesize changes in pollinating insect communities across space and time, it is necessary to understand whether, and how, sampling methods influence assessments of community patterns. We compared how two common sampling methods—yellow combined flight traps and net sampling—influence our understanding of the species richness, abundance and composition of wild bees and hoverflies, and addressed whether these patterns resulted from potentially biased sampling of individuals or species with different types of functional traits. We sampled bee and hoverfly communities in six sites over three seasons in Saxony-Anhalt, Germany. We captured more species and individuals of bees with traps and more species and individuals of hoverflies with net sampling. However, rarefied richness results were less dramatic between the sampling methods for bees and were not different between the sampling methods for hoverflies. Thus, differences in species richness across sampling methods were mostly due to differences in the number of individuals captured in the different methods. We captured more small-sized bees and hoverflies with traps. We tested if the different methods collected individuals and species with different functional traits, such as nesting preferences, sociality and flower specialization for bees and floral preference, migratory status and habitat preference for hoverflies. For most traits, we collected more individuals but not more species with a certain trait in the different methods. This was mainly due to a high abundance of one species being collected in the different methods. These results suggest that the best methodology depends on the aim of the survey, and that the methods cannot be easily combined into synthesis research. Our results have implications for the development of monitoring schemes for pollinators and for synthesis of trends that can identify threats to pollinators and inform research of pollinator conservation strategies. |
| first_indexed | 2024-12-14T07:59:11Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-038a8c0bfc7e4f5d83c61bdc73533d5e |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 1470-160X |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-12-14T07:59:11Z |
| publishDate | 2021-12-01 |
| publisher | Elsevier |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Ecological Indicators |
| spelling | doaj.art-038a8c0bfc7e4f5d83c61bdc73533d5e2022-12-21T23:10:29ZengElsevierEcological Indicators1470-160X2021-12-01132108284Pollinator sampling methods influence community patterns assessments by capturing species with different traits and at different abundancesAmibeth Thompson0Mark Frenzel1Oliver Schweiger2Martin Musche3Till Groth4Stuart P.M. Roberts5Michael Kuhlmann6Tiffany M. Knight7Institute of Biology, Martin Luther University Halle-Wittenberg, Am Kirchtor 1, 06108 Halle, Saale, Germany; German Centre for Integrative Biodiversity Research (iDiv) Halle-Jena-Leipzig, Puschstrasse 4, 04103 Leipzig, Germany; Corresponding author.Department of Community Ecology, Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research – UFZ, Theodor-Lieser-Straße 4, 06120 Halle, Saale, GermanyDepartment of Community Ecology, Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research – UFZ, Theodor-Lieser-Straße 4, 06120 Halle, Saale, Germany; German Centre for Integrative Biodiversity Research (iDiv) Halle-Jena-Leipzig, Puschstrasse 4, 04103 Leipzig, GermanyDepartment of Community Ecology, Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research – UFZ, Theodor-Lieser-Straße 4, 06120 Halle, Saale, GermanyFaculty of Economics and Management Science, University of Leipzig, Grimmaische Str. 12, 04109 Leipzig, GermanyCentre for Agri-Environmental Research, School of Agriculture, Policy and Development, University of Reading, Reading RG6 6AR, UKZoological Museum of Kiel University, Hegewischstraße 3, D-24105 Kiel, Germany; Department of Life Sciences, Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, UKInstitute of Biology, Martin Luther University Halle-Wittenberg, Am Kirchtor 1, 06108 Halle, Saale, Germany; Department of Community Ecology, Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research – UFZ, Theodor-Lieser-Straße 4, 06120 Halle, Saale, Germany; German Centre for Integrative Biodiversity Research (iDiv) Halle-Jena-Leipzig, Puschstrasse 4, 04103 Leipzig, GermanyIn order to synthesize changes in pollinating insect communities across space and time, it is necessary to understand whether, and how, sampling methods influence assessments of community patterns. We compared how two common sampling methods—yellow combined flight traps and net sampling—influence our understanding of the species richness, abundance and composition of wild bees and hoverflies, and addressed whether these patterns resulted from potentially biased sampling of individuals or species with different types of functional traits. We sampled bee and hoverfly communities in six sites over three seasons in Saxony-Anhalt, Germany. We captured more species and individuals of bees with traps and more species and individuals of hoverflies with net sampling. However, rarefied richness results were less dramatic between the sampling methods for bees and were not different between the sampling methods for hoverflies. Thus, differences in species richness across sampling methods were mostly due to differences in the number of individuals captured in the different methods. We captured more small-sized bees and hoverflies with traps. We tested if the different methods collected individuals and species with different functional traits, such as nesting preferences, sociality and flower specialization for bees and floral preference, migratory status and habitat preference for hoverflies. For most traits, we collected more individuals but not more species with a certain trait in the different methods. This was mainly due to a high abundance of one species being collected in the different methods. These results suggest that the best methodology depends on the aim of the survey, and that the methods cannot be easily combined into synthesis research. Our results have implications for the development of monitoring schemes for pollinators and for synthesis of trends that can identify threats to pollinators and inform research of pollinator conservation strategies.http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1470160X21009493MonitoringRarefactionSyrphidaeAnthophilaLTER |
| spellingShingle | Amibeth Thompson Mark Frenzel Oliver Schweiger Martin Musche Till Groth Stuart P.M. Roberts Michael Kuhlmann Tiffany M. Knight Pollinator sampling methods influence community patterns assessments by capturing species with different traits and at different abundances Ecological Indicators Monitoring Rarefaction Syrphidae Anthophila LTER |
| title | Pollinator sampling methods influence community patterns assessments by capturing species with different traits and at different abundances |
| title_full | Pollinator sampling methods influence community patterns assessments by capturing species with different traits and at different abundances |
| title_fullStr | Pollinator sampling methods influence community patterns assessments by capturing species with different traits and at different abundances |
| title_full_unstemmed | Pollinator sampling methods influence community patterns assessments by capturing species with different traits and at different abundances |
| title_short | Pollinator sampling methods influence community patterns assessments by capturing species with different traits and at different abundances |
| title_sort | pollinator sampling methods influence community patterns assessments by capturing species with different traits and at different abundances |
| topic | Monitoring Rarefaction Syrphidae Anthophila LTER |
| url | http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1470160X21009493 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT amibeththompson pollinatorsamplingmethodsinfluencecommunitypatternsassessmentsbycapturingspecieswithdifferenttraitsandatdifferentabundances AT markfrenzel pollinatorsamplingmethodsinfluencecommunitypatternsassessmentsbycapturingspecieswithdifferenttraitsandatdifferentabundances AT oliverschweiger pollinatorsamplingmethodsinfluencecommunitypatternsassessmentsbycapturingspecieswithdifferenttraitsandatdifferentabundances AT martinmusche pollinatorsamplingmethodsinfluencecommunitypatternsassessmentsbycapturingspecieswithdifferenttraitsandatdifferentabundances AT tillgroth pollinatorsamplingmethodsinfluencecommunitypatternsassessmentsbycapturingspecieswithdifferenttraitsandatdifferentabundances AT stuartpmroberts pollinatorsamplingmethodsinfluencecommunitypatternsassessmentsbycapturingspecieswithdifferenttraitsandatdifferentabundances AT michaelkuhlmann pollinatorsamplingmethodsinfluencecommunitypatternsassessmentsbycapturingspecieswithdifferenttraitsandatdifferentabundances AT tiffanymknight pollinatorsamplingmethodsinfluencecommunitypatternsassessmentsbycapturingspecieswithdifferenttraitsandatdifferentabundances |