No abstract

No abstract

The use of DNA data is ubiquitous across animal sciences. DNA may be obtained from an organism for a myriad of reasons including identification and distinction between cryptic species, sex identification, comparisons of different morphocryptic genotypes or assessments of relatedness between organisms prior to a behavioural study. DNA should be obtained while minimizing the impact on the fitness, behaviour or welfare of the subject being tested, as this can bias experimental results and cause long-lasting effects on wild animals. Furthermore, minimizing impact on experimental animals is a key Refinement principle within the ‘3Rs’ framework which aims to ensure that animal welfare during experimentation is optimised. The term ‘non-invasive DNA sampling’ has been defined to indicate collection methods that do not require capture or cause disturbance to the animal, including any effects on behaviour or fitness. In practice this is not always the case, as the term ‘non-invasive’ is commonly used in the literature to describe studies where animals are restrained or subjected to aversive procedures. We reviewed the non-invasive DNA sampling literature for the past six years (380 papers published in 2013-2018) and uncovered the existence of a significant gap between the current use of this terminology (i.e. ‘non-invasive DNA sampling’) and its original definition. We show that 58% of the reviewed papers did not comply with the original definition. We discuss the main experimental and ethical issues surrounding the potential confusion or misuse of the phrase ‘non-invasive DNA sampling’ in the current literature and provide potential solutions. In addition, we introduce the terms ‘non-disruptive’ and ‘minimally disruptive’ DNA sampling, to indicate methods that eliminate or minimise impacts not on the physical integrity/structure of the animal, but on its behaviour, fitness and welfare, which in the literature reviewed corresponds to the situation for which an accurate term is clearly missing. Furthermore, we outline when these methods are appropriate to use.

Please cite this article as: Day, R. L., Hickman, J. M., Sprague, R. I., and Wratten, S. D.,Predatory hoverflies increase oviposition in response to colour stimuli offering no reward: implications for biological control, Basic and Applied Ecology (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.baae. 2015.05.004 This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain. Page 1 of 25A c c e p t e d M a n u s c r i p t

No abstract

may be necessary to obtain DNA from an organism before using it in a bioassay or an experiment, to identify and distinguish between cryptic species, or when comparing different morphocryptic genotypes. Another example could be the assessment of relatedness between organisms prior to a behavioural study. In such cases, DNA must be obtained without affecting the fitness or behaviour of the subject being tested, as this could bias the results of the experiment. This points out the existence of a gap in the current molecular and experimental biology terminology, for which we propose the use of the term non-disruptive DNA sampling, specifically addressing behaviour and/or fitness, rather than simply physical integrity (invasiveness). We refer to these methods as "nondisruptive", and discuss when they are appropriate to use. it may be necessary to obtain DNA from an organism before using it in a bioassay or 42 an experiment, to identify and distinguish between cryptic species, or when 43 comparing different morphocryptic genotypes. Another example could be the 44 assessment of relatedness between organisms prior to a behavioural study. In such 45 cases, DNA must be obtained without affecting the fitness or behaviour of the subject 46 being tested, as this could bias the results of the experiment. This points out the 47

The use of DNA data is ubiquitous across animal sciences. DNA may be obtained from an organism for a myriad of reasons including identification and distinction between cryptic species, sex identification, comparisons of different morphocryptic genotypes or assessments of relatedness between organisms prior to a behavioural study. DNA should be obtained while minimizing the impact on the fitness, behaviour or welfare of the subject being tested, as this can bias experimental results and cause long-lasting effects on wild animals. Furthermore, minimizing impact on experimental animals is a key Refinement principle within the '3Rs' framework which aims to ensure that animal welfare during experimentation is optimised. The term 'non-invasive DNA sampling' has been defined to indicate collection methods that do not require capture or cause disturbance to the animal, including any effects on behaviour or fitness. In practice this is not always the case, as the term 'non-invasive' is commonly used in the literature to describe studies where animals are restrained or subjected to aversive procedures. We reviewed the non-invasive DNA sampling literature for the past six years (380 papers published in 2013-2018) and uncovered the existence of a significant gap between the current use of this terminology (i.e. 'non-invasive DNA sampling') and its original definition. We show that 58% of the reviewed papers did not comply with the original definition. We discuss the main experimental and ethical issues surrounding the potential confusion or misuse of the phrase 'non-invasive DNA sampling' in the current literature and provide potential solutions. In addition, we introduce the terms 'non-disruptive' and 'minimally disruptive' DNA sampling, to indicate methods that eliminate or minimise impacts not on the physical integrity/structure of the animal, but on its behaviour, fitness and welfare, which in the literature reviewed corresponds to the situation for which an accurate term is clearly missing. Furthermore, we outline when these methods are appropriate to use.

BackgroundHoneybees (Apis mellifera L.) are frequently used in agriculture for pollination services because of their abundance, generalist floral preferences, ease of management and hive transport. However, their populations are declining in many countries. Agri-Environment Schemes (AES) are being implemented in agricultural systems to combat the decline in populations of pollinators and other insects. Despite AES being increasingly embedded in policy and budgets, scientific assessments of many of these schemes still are lacking, and only a few studies have examined the extent to which insect pollinators use the floral enhancements that are part of AES and on which floral components they feed (i.e., pollen and/or nectar).MethodsIn the present work, we used a combination of observations on honeybee foraging for nectar/pollen from the Californian annual plant Phacelia tanacetifolia in the field, collection of pollen pellets from hives, and pollen identification, to assess the value of adding phacelia to an agro-ecosystem to benefit honeybees.ResultsIt was found that phacelia pollen was almost never taken by honeybees. The work here demonstrates that honeybees may not use the floral enhancements added to a landscape as expected and points to the need for more careful assessments of what resources are used by honeybees in AES and understanding the role, if any, which AES play in enhancing pollinator fitness.DiscussionWe recommend using the methodology in this paper to explore the efficacy of AES before particular flowering species are adopted more widely to give a more complete illustration of the actual efficacy of AES.