ArticleEcology and evolution2024
Fewer bowl traps and more hand netting can increase effective number of bee species and reduce excessive captures.
Article in Ecology and evolution, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Separating Sampling Bias From Abundance Shows That Different Methods Catch Different Wild Bees.Ecology and evolution · 2026Article
- Bee Habitat, but Not Bee Community Structure, Varies Across Grassland Management in Four National Parks in the Mid-Atlantic, USA.Ecology and evolution · 2024Article
- Fewer bowl traps and more hand netting can increase effective number of bee species and reduce excessive captures.Ecology and evolution · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Reports increasingly point to substantial declines in wild bee abundance and diversity, yet there is uncertainty about how best to measure these attributes in wild bee populations. Two commonly used methods are passive trapping with bee bowls or active netting of bees on flowers, but each of these has drawbacks. Comparing the outcomes of the two methods is complicated by their uncomparable units of effort. The abundance distribution of bee species is also typically highly skewed, making it difficult to accurately assess diversity when rarer species are unlikely to be caught. The effective number of species, or Hill numbers, provides a way forward by basing the response metric on the number of equally abundant species. Our goal is to compare the effective number of bee species captured between hand netting and bowl trapping in wheatgrass prairie in South Dakota and tallgrass prairie in Minnesota, USA. Species overlap between the two methods ranged from ~40% to ~60%. Emphasis placed on rare species was important, so that 95% confidence limits overlapped between the two methods for species richness but netting exceeded trapping for Shannon's and Simpson's diversities. Netting always captured more bee species with fewer bee individuals than trapping. In most cases, the number of bees captured in bowl traps indicated substantial over-sampling, with little increase in bee species detected. Correlations between bee and floral abundance, richness, and diversity differed between netted and trapped samples. We conclude that netting and trapping together produce a more complete account of species richness, but shifting sampling emphasis from trapping to netting will result in fewer bees, but more bee species captured. Due to the different relationships between bee and floral diversities that depended on sampling method, it is unwise to compare habitat associations determined by netting with those determined by trapping.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.