Pan Compared to Malaise Trapping for Bees (Hymenoptera: Apoidea) in a Longleaf Pine Savanna

Bartholomew, Chanda S.; Prowell, Dorothy

doi:10.2317/0409.24.1

Cited by 34 publications

(26 citation statements)

References 2 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Although the trap is considered to be ecologically selective (KIRK, 1984), it has been used in various studies to capture large bees, such as Bombus, Megachile and Osmia (CALABUIG, 2000;BARTHOLOMEW & PROWELL, 2005). In the present study, large bees were not collected which suggests that they are probably absent in the area.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 46%

Composition and diversity of bees (Hymenoptera) attracted by Moericke traps in an agricultural area in Rio Claro, state of São Paulo, Brasil

Souza

Campos

2008

Iheringia, Sér. Zool.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ABSTRACT. The composition and diversity of bees in an agricultural area in Rio Claro, state of São Paulo, Brazil, were studied from May 2003 to June 2004, using Moericke traps. The collection site, an area with 58.08 hectares, is characterized by grain production and direct planting, with 70% of the surrounding area planted with sugar cane. During the study, 456 bees were collected, distributed among 20 genera, pertaining to the families Andrenidae (4.8%), Apidae (40.8%) and Halictidae (54.4%). Specimens of genera Dialictus (38%) and Diadasia (30%) predominated in this area. The species diversity, assessed using the Shannon and Simpson indices, were H'=1.88 and 1/ D= 4.15, respectively, and the Evenness index was 0.61.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 46%

Composition and diversity of bees (Hymenoptera) attracted by Moericke traps in an agricultural area in Rio Claro, state of São Paulo, Brasil

Souza

Campos

2008

Iheringia, Sér. Zool.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Many other questions remain for study, most obviously, how to best estimate species richness and/or diversity. Trap size, colour and height have been partially studied in past papers (Kirk, 1984; Leong & Thorp, 1999; McIntyre & Hostetler, 2001; Bartholomew & Prowell, 2005; Toler et al. , 2005; Campbell & Hanula, 2007; Romey et al.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Previous studies have mostly compared bee ‘catch’ by trap colour (Leong & Thorp, 1999; McIntyre & Hostetler, 2001; Bartholomew & Prowell, 2005; Toler et al. , 2005; Campbell & Hanula, 2007; Romey et al.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…, 2008), and have estimated the efficacy of different collection methods (Jacob‐Remacle, 1984; Noyes, 1989; Riemann, 1995; Banaszak & Krzysztofiak, 1996; Cane et al. , 2000; Monsevièius, 2004; Bartholomew & Prowell, 2005; Giles & Ascher, 2006; Wells & Decker, 2006; Campbell & Hanula, 2007; Roulston et al. , 2007; Hopwood, 2008; Krug & Alves‐dos‐Santos, 2008; Kwaiser & Hendrix, 2008; Wilson et al.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Spatial patterns of bee captures in North American bowl trapping surveys

Droege¹,

Tepedino

LeBuhn

et al. 2010

Insect Conserv Diversity

146

116

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. 1. Bowl and pan traps are now commonly used to capture bees (Hymenoptera: Apiformes) for research and surveys. 2. Studies of how arrangement and spacing of bowl traps affect captures of bees are needed to increase the efficiency of this capture technique. 3. We present results from seven studies of bowl traps placed in trapping webs, grids, and transects in four North American ecoregions (Mid‐Atlantic, Coastal California, Chihuahuan Desert, and Columbia Plateau). 4. Over 6000 specimens from 31 bee genera were captured and analysed across the studies. 5. Based on the results from trapping webs and distance tests, the per bowl capture rate of bees does not plateau until bowls are spaced 3–5 m apart. 6. Minor clumping of bee captures within transects was detected, with 26 of 56 transects having index of dispersion values that conform to a clumped distribution and 39 transects having positive Green’s index values, 13 with zero, and only four negative. However, degree of clumping was slight with an average value of only 0.06 (the index ranges from −1 to 1) with only five values >0.15. Similarly, runs tests were significant for only 5.9% of the transects. 7. Results indicate that (i) capture rates are unaffected by short distances between bowls within transects and (ii) that bowls and transects should be dispersed throughout a study site.

show abstract

“…but will be ultimately be deposited at the Michigan State University A. J. Cook Arthropod Research Collection. We recognize that our pan trapping timing and technique employed here, while effective in capturing a variety of bee species (Droege et al ), may miss important groups (Cane et al ; Bartholomew & Prowell ). Trapping earlier in the spring (April) or later in the fall (September, October) may have captured species that emerge as adults outside of the sampling window, and trapping higher in the woodland canopy may have captured species more closely tied with tree pollination.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Bee community responses to a gradient of oak savanna restoration practices

Lettow

Brudvig

Bahlai

et al. 2018

Restoration Ecology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

North American Midwestern oak (Quercus spp.) savannas are rare fire‐dependent ecosystems that can support high levels of biodiversity and are the focus of considerable restoration effort due to widespread fire suppression. Due to the predominance of understory forbs in oak savannas, many of which require insect pollination, restoration practices should be evaluated for their potential impacts on pollinator communities. We evaluated bee community responses during the first 2 years of experimental restoration of fire‐suppressed oak savanna in southern Michigan. We used unmanaged references and two different restoration methods (burning only and burning with thinning) to examine the effects of restoration intensity on the abundance, diversity, and functional groups of bees. We found that thinning and burning rapidly increased bee abundance, richness, and Shannon's diversity, relative to unmanaged references, whereas burn‐only restoration largely failed to do so. Thinning and burning also resulted in a distinct bee community after two seasons, while bee communities in burn‐only restoration plots were similar to those from unmanaged references. Differences in bee diversity and community structure between treatments may be due to the influence of restoration on nesting resources, which is reflected in the differential captures of various nesting guilds. Overall, oak savanna restoration by thinning and burning had positive effects on bee diversity, while burning alone only increased bee abundance. We thus illustrate how restoration strategies that typically target plants have broader‐reaching biodiversity benefits. Although restoring savannas through burning alone may eventually shift bee communities, coupling thinning with burning will influence pollinator communities over the shorter term.

show abstract

Pan Compared to Malaise Trapping for Bees (Hymenoptera: Apoidea) in a Longleaf Pine Savanna

Cited by 34 publications

References 2 publications

Composition and diversity of bees (Hymenoptera) attracted by Moericke traps in an agricultural area in Rio Claro, state of São Paulo, Brasil

Composition and diversity of bees (Hymenoptera) attracted by Moericke traps in an agricultural area in Rio Claro, state of São Paulo, Brasil

Spatial patterns of bee captures in North American bowl trapping surveys

Bee community responses to a gradient of oak savanna restoration practices

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About