The advantage of bowls for general surveys is that they are more replicable than following the ramblings, skill, and proclivities of a person with a net.   

I've been following this thread with some interest. I've always felt
sympathy for E.O Wilson who turned to ants because of a vision problem
resulting from an accident. I have no excuse as good as Uncle Ed's, but
I've always felt that I don't have very good hand/eye coordination in
netting small, fast-moving bees. When I'm with other bee folks, I always
miss the things they catch. I've tended to use pan collectors and other
bulk traps simply because I'm not good at the other stuff despite having
had excellent teachers. I've always assumed that the pan collecting may be
more repeatable but that perhaps I'm missing the "good stuff" I'd only be
able to get by being an expert, and by being fast.

T'ai's comments on teaching novices and inter-observer differences rang a
bell. I worked on a similar problem years ago when screening people to
search for desert tortoises. In a controlled experiment on replicated
plots, I found that certain people were markedly better than others at
finding tortoises, but that previous experience at doing this work was NOT
a predictor of that ability. In other words, there were pronounced
differences among people in developing a search image, staying focused, or
discerning patterns, but that previous experience did not necessarily help
with this. These results suggested that spending some time to find those
talented searchers would be worthwhile. I also tried using a page from
"Where's Waldo?" as a quick surrogate to see if it was any predictor. I.e.,
to see if people with better Waldo finding skills would be better tortoise
finders. That didn't work out, but I still think that people vary widely in
their ability to pick up on things and that that talent should be sought
out and rewarded. The skill sets used with bees and tortoises may be very
different but I bet that the underlying principles are likely the same.
While researching the paper I found that there were relatively few studies
on inter-observer bias. (Freilich, J.E. and E.L. LaRue. 1998. Importance of
observer experience in finding desert tortoises. Journal of Wildlife
Management 62 (2): 590-596.)

Jerry
__________________________
Jerry Freilich, Ph.D.
Research Coordinator, Olympic National Park
Coordinator, North Coast & Cascades Research Learning Network
Olympic National Park
600 E. Park Ave.
Port Angeles, WA 98362

Phone:   360-565-3082
Fax:        360-565-3070
Cell:        360-477-3338
Jerry_Freilich@...

"This is the most beautiful place on earth,
   there are many such places..."
                                          Edward Abbey
___________________________



              T'ai Roulston
              <thr8z@...
              du>                                                        To
              Sent by:                  beemonitoring@yahoogroups.com
              beemonitoring@yah                                          cc
              oogroups.com
                                                                    Subject
                                        Re: [beemonitoring] The Soap
              06/05/2008 09:01          Collecting Jar
              AM AST


              Please respond to
              beemonitoring@yah
                oogroups.com











  Sam:



  Your basic design is reasonable and it would be great to have someone do
something
  similar sometime. An hour of netting is definitely not sufficient and there is
no
  doubt that bowls would win hands-down for repeatability in most circumstances
with
  such limited net collecting. The hour that people use to accompany bowls now is
  not for a real faunal survey but rather to get some things that bowls miss. In
my
  current community surveys with nets, I use something on the order of 10
collecting
  hours per day per site (with a substantial crew, total duration depending on
the
  number of plant species of interest). Obviously, only people with substantial
  resources (human and otherwise) and a need for data of faunal associations can
  deploy that kind of effort. What is really needed is a comparison of sampling
  efforts (how many bowls are necessary --data you probably have in spades-- for
  species accumulation curves or other metrics to flatten) and how many net hours
of
  sampling by single collectors are required for the same saturation estimates.
When
  that is established, the variability of collectors can be thrown in to
understand
  the relationship between sampling effort and method bias.  I train novel net
  collectors every year for intensive field work. I don't have systematic data
for
  comparisons of individual collectors (I make sure that everyone collects on all
  plants to avoid systematic person x plant collection biases), but I am
impressed
  with how quickly people get good at collecting. I think that most but not all
  biases from individual collectors can be controlled by sampling protocols.
  Selection of method should always depend on the ultimate goal for the data and
  which types of biases and limitations are most tolerable.

  T'ai

  On Jun 5, 2008, at 8:26 AM, Sam Droege wrote:




        T'ai:

        True, I am generalizing based on experience rather than on data.  Other
than
        some rather small references in papers to differences in observers in
        netting capture rates I can't think of anything published that looks at
        comparisons in variability in any set of different techniques.   Maybe
some
        design like this:

        Perhaps use 6 collectors (3 experienced, 3 neophyte) and 18 Study Sites
        (Vernal bottomlands, transmission lines, or fields, 1 Hectare but perhaps
        larger so their is a larger collection of bees to sample from)


        Day 1.  Observers are assigned to the 18 sites (3 each) in which they set
        out bowls in the early a.m. and then net for 1 hour during the middle of
the
        day.
        Day 2. Observers do an additional 3 sites allocated in such as way that
all
        pairs of observers have been matched.  (note that there would be 3 extra
        sites on day 2)

        It would be nice to repeat this at another 18 sites so that the number of
        bees wouldn't be exhausted at a site.,.... or perhaps better... simply
wait
        several weeks and do it again on the same sites

        That's my initial idea.  I have a feeling there is a more parsimonious
        design out there somewhere but can't think of it at this point.   I am
also
        concerned that because we are dealing with day, site, observer, and
        technique factors here that our degrees of freedom might be eaten up. 
This
        would be a grand summer student project. .... How about doing it at
Blandy
        this summer?  I would be glad to come down to participate.

        sam


        Sam Droege  Sam_Droege@...
        w 301-497-5840 h 301-390-7759 fax 301-497-5624
        USGS Patuxent Wildlife Research Center
        BARC-EAST, BLDG 308, RM 124 10300 Balt. Ave., Beltsville, MD  20705
        Http://www.pwrc.usgs.gov




        Albert Einstein
        “Not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that
counts
        can be counted.”

        P Please don't print this e-mail unless really needed.




  T'ai Roulston <thr8z@...>
  Sent by: beemonitoring@yahoogroups.com


  06/04/2008 09:35 PM





                                   Please respond to
                             beemonitoring@yahoogroups.com



                                                                                 
To
                                              beemonitoring@yahoogroups.com
                                                                                 
cc

                                                                            
Subject
                                              Re: [beemonitoring] The Soap
                                              Collecting Jar










         The advantage of bowls for general surveys is that they are more
replicable
        than following the ramblings, skill, and proclivities of a person with a
        net.




        Sam:

        A lot of people are repeating statements similar to this, casually and in
        submitted manuscripts.  Certainly, any standardized collecting is more
        repeatable than non-standardized collecting (the rambling, skill, and
        proclivity part). Is pan-trapping more repeatable than standardized
        intensive netting? It probably is, but I haven't seen the data yet. There
        can certainly be big differences among collectors in catching small or
        speedy insects, but the variability of pan trap catch with placement can
be
        extraordinary as well.  Repeatability is likely to be strongly related to
        sampling effort (number of collectors/collecting time or number of pan
        traps) plus variation related to biases in method. None of these factors
are
        well documented or, to my knowledge, easily generalized at this point.

        T'ai

        T'ai Roulston
        Associate Director Blandy Experimental Farm
        Research Assoc. Prof. Environmental Sciences
        University of Virginia
        400 Blandy Farm Lane
        Boyce, VA 22620
        540 837-1758 ext 276
        thr8z@...







  T'ai Roulston
  Associate Director, Blandy Experimental Farm
  Research Assoc. Professor, Dept Envi Sci. University of Virginia
  400 Blandy Farm Lane
  Boyce, VA 22620

Anita,
Is this valid for bees that have been in soapy water "all day,"
bounced around in a shirt pocket, or just those... "under an hour?"

Also, if my observation is correct, congrats on the best
self-contained post, not requiring a Reply-To tag-a-log, much less,
multiples tag-a-longs, as observed, (and as noted by YahOops
auto-count of 11 messages in this Digest, below noted,)
though the Digest enumerated just 5. (I think they missed
some that were stuck together, LOL! )

Your post was the most eeasily, observed...! ;>)))
BillSF9c

>Sam et al.

>RE washing pollen off of soapy water collected bees.  It takes some
concerted
efforts to shake up these bees in soapy water for washing off the
pollen.
Vigorous shaking for at least one minute, and that doesn't always do
it.  If
one is just netting a bee and dropping it into soapy water for killing,
I doubt
you would lose all of the pollen.  Maybe a pellet, yes, but not whats
in the
hairs.

>Anita  Collins
>USDA, ARS retired

Messages in this topic (11)

Sam and others:

I am helping with a small native bee research project in upstate New
York focusing on farms. I would like to collect data on flowering
plant abundance and diversity around the bee bowl transects. I will be
putting out bowls in crop fields (when the crops are in flower) and in
more natural on farm habitats. I want to do this to see whether there
is a measurable correlation between bee and wildflower
abundance/diversity. For example, would it be possible to collect this
flowering plant data within 20 meters of the transects (recording
relative abundance of the spp. present). I would like to do this in a
way that is practical considering time constraints yet is still
useful. Considering this, within how large of an area around the
transect would it be wise to survey for the flowering plants?

Also, when doing 10-minute visual surveys of bees by crops/wildflowers
is it advisable to just record the bees that are observed on the
flowers themselves. Or also the ones that are flying around the
flowers but are not actually on the flowers. I would also like to
collect the above mentioned flower data around where I am doing the
visual surveys.

Thank You,
Martin Holdrege

Nancy, I had missed your previous ‘methods’ email, but I found it on the list. I
have been out of town for a class, but am back now. My direct email is
mwilso14@... if you want to discuss directly.

I’ll describe my methods but keep in mind at two summers experience, you have
one more year experience then I.

I’m looking at blueberries and cucurbits, but have a different method for each
since I’m interested in different questions for those. It could be an advantage
to have the same method for squash and blueberries though. A 40 meter transect
would be larger than one of my locations. I decided against a bee per flower
variable for blueberries due to the many number of flowers per bush. Many
flowers are not quite open, but look open at a glance. So I instead went with
bees per bush. I’m using % flowering per bush, which is rather subjective but I
think its sufficient for my needs, and number of plants per location to check
for flowering strength effect on bee numbers per bush. If this seems off,
someone feel free to interject. Below is the basics of the blueberry method:

For blueberries, the response variable will be visitation rate per bush by
species group. Ten random blueberry bushes at each location (minimum 7
locations) will be observed on at least 2 separate occasions per location (I may
increase to 3 if time allows, or decrease location #). Each blueberry bush, will
be observed for 5 minutes. Bushes will be rated by percentage flowering to
determine if flowering strength effects pollinator number. Pollinators will be
counted and organized by species groups of honey bees, bumble bees, carpenter
bees, bright green bees, Osmia bees, Habropoda laboriosa, Diptera, Lepidoptera,
and other Hymenoptera. Robbing or legitimate visits will be noted to determine
if the insect is actually pollinating the flower, or instead, robbing nectar and
bypassing pollination. Sex will be noted for carpenter bees to determine if 
males significantly rob more then females. My preliminary data indicates this.

I am also noting specific families of bees, Lepidoptera, etc. not on the above
list if I can distinguish them in the field, like the hummingbird moth,
syrphids, etc.

My main questions with blueberries are;

What are the primary and minor pollinators of blueberry?
What contribution do unmanaged bees provide toward pollination of blueberry
compared to honey bees?
What contribution do carpenter bees provide towards pollination?
What factors influence carpenter bee robbing, such as nesting females (whom
would need pollen) or other factors (planting size, etc.)?

I should also note I did not see a single Habropoda at 5 of the above
observation periods in East TN. A farmer co-operator in southern, middle TN whom
is also doing the protocol saw one Habropoda (determined by his observation and
a not so great photo) among 4 observation periods.

For Cucurbits (watermelon, yellow squash, and pumpkin), I’m using 100 flower
transects to get the bee per flower variable. I’ll be following the protocol in:

Willis D. S. and Kevan, P. G. (1995). Foraging dynamics of Peponapis pruinosa
(Hymenoptera: Anthophoridae) on pumpkin (Cucurbita pepo) in Southern Ontario.
The Candadian Entomologist 127: 167.

and

Shuler, R.E., Roulston, T. H., Farris, G.E. (2005). Farming practicies influence
wild pollinator populations on squash and pumpkin. Journal of Economic
Entomology 98(3): 790-795.

I will also provide data for/compatible to Jim Cane’s Squash Pollinators of the
Americas Survey.

During 2009 I would like to do some bagging experiments and data analysis like
in:

Winfree, R., Williams, N. M., Dushoff, J., and Kremen, C. (2007). Native bees
provide insurance against ongoing honey bee losses. Ecology Letters 10:
1105-1113.

But time and money is an unknown at this point. I would continue to use the 100
flower transect, but use methods in Winfree for pollen deposition and data
analysis.

Squash questions will be typical of Shuler et al and Winfree et al.

Suggestions/comments welcome!

-Michael Wilson




-----Original Message-----
From: beemonitoring@yahoogroups.com on behalf of nancy lee adamson
Sent: Tue 6/10/2008 10:19 AM
To: beemonitoring@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [beemonitoring] robbing

Hi, Michael,

I would like to hear more details about the methods you are using.  I didn't
hear back much since I wrote about Winfree's approach.  I am floundering a
bit, so would love to hear what has been working well for you.

Thanks.  Nancy



On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 10:18 AM, Wilson, Michael E <mwilso14@...>
wrote:

>   Hi Nancy, sounds like we are doing the same thing. Dr. Sampson also has
> an article on this.
>
> Sampson, B. J., Kanka, R. G., Stringer, S. J. (2004). Nectar robbery by
> bees Xylocopa virginica and Apis mellifera contributes to the pollination of
> Rabbiteye Blueberry. Journal of Economic Entomology 97(3): 735-740.
>
> here's the article I have for Dr. Delaplane
>
> Dedej, S. and Delaplane K. S. (2004). Nectar-robbing carpenter bees reduce
> seed-setting capability of honey bees (Hymenoptera: Apidae) in Rabbiteye
> blueberry, Vaccinium ashei, 'Climax'. Environmental Entomology 33(1):
> 100-106.
>
> I'm noting if each visitor is 'legitimate visit' or 'robbing' and will use
> that in determining
> the most significant pollinators. At two of my three sites honey bees
> provided zero pollination that
> I could tell. Carpenter bees over all seemed to be 'pretty good'
> pollinators even though some robbed. The bloom
> is over here, but I think I figured out what I need to do next year. I
> certainly need more locations
> as very different things where happening at each location.
>
> I'm interested in what you said about robbing occurring after peak bloom.
> Are you pretty confident
> that it starts after peak bloom? My plans for the 2009 bloom was to visit 7
> locations 2 times. I wonder
> if I need to increase the per farm visits to get before, during, and after
> peak bloom observations per farm?
> One farm I visited never really had a peak bloom though, it was just
> kind of a slow, steady, modest bloom, they trimmed heavily the previous
> year due to the frost, and I think
> that must have affected their bloom this year. They had robbing the entire
> time.
>
> -Thanks,
> Michael Wilson (UTK grad student)
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: beemonitoring@yahoogroups.com <beemonitoring%40yahoogroups.com> on
> behalf of Wyatt Mangum
> Sent: Fri 5/30/2008 9:25 AM
> To: beemonitoring@yahoogroups.com <beemonitoring%40yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: Re: [beemonitoring] robbing
>
> Dear Nancy,
>
> Dr. Delaplane has work with this. His contact address is
>
> Dr. Keith S. Delaplane
> Professor of Entomology
> 463C Biological Sciences Building
> University of Georgia
> Athens, GA 30602 USA
> voice (706) 542-1765
> lab 706-769-1736
> fax (706) 542-3872
> ksd@... <ksd%40uga.edu>
>
> Kind Regards,
>
> Dr. Wyatt A. Mangum
> Editor-in-Chief of Apiacta (digital version)
> American Bee Journal Columnist on Honey Bee Biology
> Mathematics Department
> University of Mary Washington
> 1301 College Avenue
> Fredericksburg, VA 22401 USA
> Email: wmangum@... <wmangum%40umw.edu>
>
>
> >>> "nancy lee adamson" <nladamson@... <nladamson%40gmail.com>>
> 05/30/08 9:14 AM >>>
> I am monitoring bees on various crops, taking visitation counts. On
> blueberries, after peak flowering, carpenter bees cut holes into the
> flowers
> and rob nectar. These holes are then used by honey bees, as well. I have
> been including these in monitoring counts, but realized I should probably
> remove them. Any thoughts from you all on this? Does anyone know if the
> robbers still improve pollination on self- fertile flowers? Thanks for your
> thoughts. Nancy
>
> --
> Nancy Adamson
> Graduate Student in Entomology at Virginia Tech
> tel: 540- 231- 6498
>
>
>



--
Nancy Adamson
Graduate Student in Entomology at Virginia Tech
tel: 540-231-6498

I forgot to mention I'll have bee bowls in the cucurbit plantings, but not at
blueberry farms
due to distances and time.

I'm not sure if anyone knows the answers to some of these questions,
but this inquiry was sent to me by someone here in Michigan this past
week and I thought there might be somebody on this list who could
answer at least some of them.

Here is an excerpt of the original message to me:

"Knox Cellars in Washington State is a well known supplier of Osmia
lignaria. Is O. lignaria one monolithic species across the country?—or
are gardener/importers doing a disservice to the genetic lineage of
these insects. I know that in plants this is something that is often
discussed; what do entomologists say about this `mixing'. Is their
survival rate affected by the difference in climate? Are we
potentially spreading diseases across the country? Are Osmia
encountering the same problems as bumblebees?"

Thanks!
Julianna

Osmia lignaria has two subspecies an eastern O. lignaria lignaria and a western
O. lignaria propinqua.  The split is reported as a 100th meridian pattern. In my
opinion such transport is not a good idea.  Person feeling aside,  it certainly
would alter the genetics of the populations (presuming the subspecies intermate
successfully).  I recall that there may be genetic mixing in some areas



Neal


----- Original Message -----
From: "tuelljul" <tuelljul@...>
To: beemonitoring@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2008 10:11:39 AM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern
Subject: [beemonitoring] questions about the effect of managed Osmia lignaria on
wild populations

I'm not sure if anyone knows the answers to some of these questions,
but this inquiry was sent to me by someone here in Michigan this past
week and I thought there might be somebody on this list who could
answer at least some of them.

Here is an excerpt of the original message to me:

"Knox Cellars in Washington State is a well known supplier of Osmia
lignaria. Is O. lignaria one monolithic species across the country?—or
are gardener/importers doing a disservice to the genetic lineage of
these insects. I know that in plants this is something that is often
discussed; what do entomologists say about this `mixing'. Is their
survival rate affected by the difference in climate? Are we
potentially spreading diseases across the country? Are Osmia
encountering the same problems as bumblebees?"

Thanks!
Julianna



--
Neal Williams
Department of Biology
Bryn Mawr College

tel: 610.526.5091
fax: 610.526.5086

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/06/080611135020.htm

>We could unwittingly introduce new problems to
regions that lacked them before.  Witness the spread of tracheal mites
and Varroa mites by beekeepers around the US.

>James H. Cane
USDA-ARS Bee Biology and Systematics Lab
Utah State University, Logan, UT 84322 USA

Trying to learn:
An issue of sharing a pond bank with possibly diseased neighbor's
bees, and "clean new" bees of the pond owner...

Risk level?
Are these mites more prevalent in nurses on brood?
These become foragers, yes? Do mite infestations in foragers
exist at near-same levels as nurses? ... indicating a reasonable
(reasonably high/negative) risk when sharing banks of a small pond?

Or is the risk equal as the vector is the visited flower, anyway?
Or do bees not visit "previously-owned' flowers?
(I thought I had read that. they tended not to.)

(Request permission in advance to repost this,
w/credit due to list & author(s.)
BillSF9c
http://pets.groups.yahoo.com/group/GardenBees ... New, 12 Members

I will be out of the office starting  06/24/2008 and will not return until
07/07/2008.

I will respond to your message when I return.  If emergency, see
below........

For all Cherry Valley Issues, please contact Carl Melberg at (978) 443
4661.

For all Rolling Knolls Landfill issues contact Andrea McLaughlin at (703)
358 2596.

For all Harding Landfill and OU-3 Landfill Issues contact Miranda Brannon
at (703) 358 2345.

For all Great Swamp or other issues, contact Bill Koch at (973) 425 1222 x
12

Thanks

-Mike

I don't think 'clean new' honey bees really exist. There would be
some new disease some populations of honey bees wouldn't have,
but the usual suspects are fairly endemic. Ponds and flowers are probably
places bees can pick up diseases (maybe/ maybe-not mites), but the accepted
thought that I understand is that robbing of dead honey bee colonies
is the primary method 'not so infested' bees get very infested with
mites and logically thinking, other diseases as well.
And then of course there is the normal population build up of
mites and nosema you get through the seasons from the mites and nosema
that inevitably came with the new bees.

My opinions,
-Michael Wilson


-----Original Message-----
From: beemonitoring@yahoogroups.com on behalf of OOWONBS@...
Sent: Wed 6/25/2008 4:49 PM
To: beemonitoring@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [beemonitoring] Disease spread vector

>We could unwittingly introduce new problems to
regions that lacked them before.  Witness the spread of tracheal mites
and Varroa mites by beekeepers around the US.

>James H. Cane
USDA-ARS Bee Biology and Systematics Lab
Utah State University, Logan, UT 84322 USA

Trying to learn:
An issue of sharing a pond bank with possibly diseased neighbor's
bees, and "clean new" bees of the pond owner...

Risk level?
Are these mites more prevalent in nurses on brood?
These become foragers, yes? Do mite infestations in foragers
exist at near-same levels as nurses? ... indicating a reasonable
(reasonably high/negative) risk when sharing banks of a small pond?

Or is the risk equal as the vector is the visited flower, anyway?
Or do bees not visit "previously-owned' flowers?
(I thought I had read that. they tended not to.)

(Request permission in advance to repost this,
w/credit due to list & author(s.)
BillSF9c
http://pets.groups.yahoo.com/group/GardenBees ... New, 12 Members

I will be out of the office starting  06/25/2008 and will not return until
06/30/2008.

   Contact Acting I&M Coordinator  Janet Rock at 865-430-4743 for pressing
business.  thx,
Keith

1. I was wondering if anoyone has worked with bowl traps colored pink
or violet, and if so, what were the results. A substantial fraction of
flowering species, including bee-pollinated ones, have these colors.
Where I come from (Israel), they greatly outnumber the blue ones.

2. Did anyone find any significant difference in bee
species/genera/taxon/functional group composition, when comparing the
catches of white, blue and yellow bowls?

Thanks,

Gidi.

Gidi, I am using florescent Pink and florescent orange as well as Fl
yellow, F lblue, and white.  I am collecting bees in all colors but
fewer in the orange.  At this point of the year I am collecting bore
bees in the white and yellow bowls but in the spring I was getting am
equal amount in the pink bowls.  They are certainly worth trying.  I
use florescent spray paint as it is easier and quicker to apply.
Jane

On Jul 3, 2008, at 8:28 AM, Gidi wrote:

> 1. I was wondering if anoyone has worked with bowl traps colored pink
>  or violet, and if so, what were the results. A substantial fraction of
>  flowering species, including bee-pollinated ones, have these colors.
>  Where I come from (Israel), they greatly outnumber the blue ones.
>
>  2. Did anyone find any significant difference in bee
>  species/genera/taxon/functional group composition, when comparing the
>  catches of white, blue and yellow bowls?
>
>  Thanks,
>
>  Gidi.
>
>
>
>

I use funnel traps, not bowl traps and I use Krylon flourescent yellow and
Krylon flourescent blue.  I get very significant differences in taxon in
the two different colors.  Very generally, I get more Halictidae in the
yellow and more Apidae and Megachilidae in the blue.  From hearsay, I
think the white tends to attract about the same as the yellow.  I have not
tried other colors.  Karen