USGS Science⌕ Search

USGS · 70282778

Pursuing best practices for minimizing wild bee captures to support biological research

Abstract

Bees are important pollinators of wild and domesticated flowering plant species. Over the last 30 years, an increasing number of scientific articles have been published on the ecology and conservation of wild bees. To achieve research goals, many studies have pursued the lethal take of wild bees. Although the impact of lethal take for scientific pursuits is likely negligible compared to the negative impacts of human-mediated phenomena such as climate change, urbanization, and agricultural intensification, it is important to evaluate the history of lethal take on scientific endeavors. In our study, we evaluated a random sample of 30 years of scientific publications on wild bees. Across 1426 surveyed publications, 536 reported the lethal take of wild bees. We found that 61% of these studies lethally captured wild bees primarily for species identification. Furthermore, we determined passive sampling of wild bees resulted in substantially more lethal collections than active methods per study. However, combined approaches of passive and active collection resulted in the greatest lethal take of wild bees per study. Finally, we determined that 64% of the studies did not provide deposition information for their samples, hindering additional research that could be done with them. The increasing availability of video and photographic devices and artificial intelligence approaches to identification, the development of low and noninvasive molecular methods, and the ease of sharing information, allow for a timely discussion on alternative routes and potentially new best practices in bee research. We focus our discussion on alternative methods for minimizing lethal captures for identification purposes and through passive methods, and for maximizing the utility of the data collected. Finally, we provide a framework for continued engagement among researchers and managers to develop strategies that can contribute to reducing our impact on wild bee communities and making the most of collected specimens.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Ana Montero-Castaño, Jonathan Berenguer Uhuad Koch, Thuy-Tien Thai Lindsay, Byron Love, John Michael Mola, Kiera Newman, Janean K. Sharkey. 2022-06-03. Pursuing best practices for minimizing wild bee captures to support biological research. https://doi.org/10.1111/csp2.12734

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related USGS reports

Restoring elk in Minnesota: Landowner support for restoring an elk population

Public support is critical to successfully restore wildlife populations and avoid future human–wildlife conflict. We used a structural equation model (SEM) to analyze 2550 survey responses from landowners in northeast Minnesota to examine the influence of four psychological constructs on support for restoring a wild, free-ranging elk ( Cervus canadensis ) population in the region. Our model included perceived risk from elk, social trust in the state wildlife agency, perceived personal control over impacts from elk, and attitudes toward elk. Perceived risk, perceived personal control, and social trust each had a direct, significant impact on attitudes toward elk. Attitudes had a significant, direct effect on support for restoring elk, and perceived risk had a significant, indirect effect on support. Our model explained 66% of variability in support for restoring an elk population and 50% of variability in attitudes toward elk. We found abundant support among landowners to restore an elk population in northeast Minnesota, but continued effort will be necessary to maintain support when elk restoration occurs. Our findings in northeast Minnesota suggest messaging should focus on helping landowners cope with potential threats through improving their trust in the state wildlife agency (i.e., social trust) and ability to avoid negative outcomes from an elk population (i.e., personal control).

northeast Minnesota↗

Adaptive capacity of alpine fauna in Australia

Climate change is leading to rapid and unprecedented changes to Australia's alpine ecosystems. The impacts of these changes at a species level are not fully understood, making it challenging to holistically assess the impacts of a changing climate in these ecosystems. To address this gap, we combine a literature review with expert opinion to conduct individual adaptive capacity analyses for 29 species of Australia's alpine animals. We conduct these analyses using a published framework which encompasses key themes, such as life history, capacity for movement, genetic variation, and distribution. Our results highlight diversity in the adaptive capacity of Australia's alpine animals and suggest that climate change will impact even closely related species in surprisingly disparate ways. Our study also provides an example of how to overcome perceived data deficiency and support conservation practitioners with what is known. We have created an important resource for land managers in Australia's Alps that systematically integrates diverse data to provide insight into the mechanisms behind the vulnerability of some of Australia's most threatened species to climate change. The evidence this study collates should be considered in conservation planning to ensure species-level natural history information is included in decisions about management actions to mitigate climate change impacts.

Conservation Science and Practice↗

What we know about wildlife outcomes of the conservation reserve program: A meta-analysis

The Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) is one of the most extensive private-land conservation programs in the United States, aimed at mitigating habitat loss and supporting biodiversity in agricultural landscapes. Individual studies of CRP effects on wildlife report mixed results, necessitating a comprehensive synthesis. We conducted a meta-analysis and vote-counting assessment of 96 studies (1009 case studies, i.e., individual analyses of a wildlife response to a CRP predictor variable) to evaluate effects on wildlife density, occurrence, reproduction, habitat use, and species diversity. Formal meta-analyses were performed for wildlife density and avian nest success. We found CRP generally benefited wildlife, with vote counting indicating positive effects in 32% of all comparisons (i.e., including comparisons to any type of non-CRP land) and in 64% of comparisons to cropland. Formal meta-analysis indicated avian nest success was significantly higher on CRP lands compared to non-CRP lands, but CRP enrollment did not consistently increase wildlife density, likely due to species-specific and ecological factors we did not account for. The literature was strongly biased toward birds (90% of case studies), with limited research on mammals, invertebrates, amphibians, and reptiles. High heterogeneity in effect sizes suggests that variation in conservation practices, study methodologies, and ecological contexts plays a critical role in shaping measured wildlife responses to CRP. Our results demonstrate CRP provides important benefits to wildlife, particularly by enhancing avian reproductive success. However, variation in wildlife effects highlights the need for studies that incorporate more detailed information on CRP management practices and increased research on non-avian taxa. Addressing these gaps may provide additional information allowing for the implementation of improved conservation strategies and maximize CRP's ecological benefits in agricultural landscapes.

Conservation Science and Practice↗