Turley Nash E, Kania Sarah E, Petitta Isabella R, Otruba Elizabeth A, Biddinger David J, Butzler Thomas M, Sesler Valerie V, López-Uribe Margarita M
Department of Entomology, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA, USA.
Intercollege Graduate Degree Program in Ecology, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA, USA.
Ann Entomol Soc Am. 2024 Jul 11;117(4):220-233. doi: 10.1093/aesa/saae014. eCollection 2024 Jul.
Bee monitoring, or widespread efforts to document bee community biodiversity, can involve data collection using lethal (specimen collections) or non-lethal methods (observations, photographs). Additionally, data can be collected by professional scientists or by volunteer participants from the general public. Collection-based methods presumably produce more reliable data with fewer biases against certain taxa, while photography-based approaches, such as data collected from public natural history platforms like iNaturalist, can involve more people and cover a broader geographic area. Few efforts have been made to quantify the pros and cons of these different approaches. We established a community science monitoring program to assess bee biodiversity across the state of Pennsylvania (USA) using specimen collections with nets, blue vane traps, and bowl traps. We recruited 26 participants, mostly Master Gardeners, from across the state to sample bees after receiving extensive training on bee monitoring topics and methods. The specimens they collected were identified to species, stored in museum collections, and the data added to public databases. Then, we compared the results from our collections to research-grade observations from iNaturalist during the same time period (2021 and 2022). At state and county levels, we found collections data documented over twice as much biodiversity and novel baseline natural history data (state and county records) than data from iNaturalist. iNaturalist data showed strong biases toward large-bodied and non-native species. This study demonstrates the value of highly trained community scientists for collections-based research that aims to document patterns of bee biodiversity over space and time.
蜜蜂监测，即广泛开展的记录蜜蜂群落生物多样性的工作，可通过使用致死方法（标本采集）或非致死方法（观察、拍照）来收集数据。此外，数据可由专业科学家或普通公众中的志愿者参与者收集。基于采集的方法可能会产生更可靠的数据，对某些分类群的偏差较少，而基于摄影的方法，如从iNaturalist等公共自然历史平台收集的数据，可让更多人参与并覆盖更广泛的地理区域。很少有人努力去量化这些不同方法的优缺点。我们建立了一个社区科学监测项目，利用网捕、蓝色风向标诱捕器和碗状诱捕器进行标本采集，以评估美国宾夕法尼亚州的蜜蜂生物多样性。我们从该州各地招募了26名参与者，其中大多数是园艺大师，在接受了关于蜜蜂监测主题和方法的广泛培训后对蜜蜂进行采样。他们收集的标本被鉴定到物种，保存在博物馆收藏中，数据被添加到公共数据库。然后，我们将我们采集的结果与同一时期（2021年和2022年）iNaturalist的研究级观察结果进行了比较。在州和县级层面，我们发现采集数据记录的生物多样性和新的基线自然历史数据（州和县级记录）是iNaturalist数据的两倍多。iNaturalist数据对大型和非本地物种表现出强烈的偏差。这项研究证明了训练有素的社区科学家对于基于采集的研究的价值，该研究旨在记录蜜蜂生物多样性在空间和时间上的模式。
