Search

Copyright of Methods in Ecology & Evolution is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Ecological disturbance can promote or reduce community biodiversity depending on its severity. Beekeeping activities represent a type of ecological disturbance when large numbers of honey bees are introduced to a landscape and interact with the local plant and pollinator community. In this study, we characterized the effect of immediate and long-term low-density migratory beekeeping on the diversity and abundance of native bees in the Qinghai-Tibet Plateau (China). We found that the presence of apiaries and the number of honey bees reduced native bee abundances in the local bee community, likely through displacement from floral resources. However, in locations where apiaries were previously kept for decades but are not currently present, native bee abundances recovered, and phylogenetic diversity increased; yet community relative abundances and dominant species were distinct from those that had never been stocked. Our results suggest that the presence of a transient, intermediate number of migratory honey bee colonies (60–100 colonies spaced ≥15 km from each other) may represent an intermediate ecological disturbance and not permanently reduce native bee abundances past a critical threshold that may lead to local extirpation. Yet, our study demonstrates the potential for even intermediate-scale low-density beekeeping to alter native bee communities in the long-term. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article explores the importance of using scientific binomial nomenclature for bees and argues against relying solely on vernacular or common names. The authors provide five reasons for the significance of scientific names in promoting bee literacy and facilitating consistent communication across languages and cultures. They also discuss the role of citizen science in collecting field data and improving scientific knowledge about bee species. While acknowledging the limitations of citizen science projects and the challenges of using vernacular names, the article emphasizes the continued use of scientific names in environmental education and citizen science initiatives. Additionally, the text discusses the use of vernacular names and common names in the taxonomy of mayflies, stoneflies, and webspinners. It explains that vernacular names can be misleading and vary across languages and regions, making them less accurate in reflecting the ecology and taxonomy of species. The text highlights the importance of scientific binomial nomenclature in providing a stable and universal naming system for organisms. It concludes by acknowledging the challenges of language barriers and emphasizing the need for transparency and regulation in the naming process. Lastly, the article focuses on the classification and identification of wild bee species, comparing the use of vernacular names versus scientific names. The authors argue that while vernacular names can be useful for outreach and cultural awareness, scientific names are crucial for conservation efforts and scientific communication across borders and cultures. They caution against relying exclusively on vernacular names, as it can lead to confusion, misidentification, and the dismissal of scientific taxonomy. The authors advocate for a collaborative [Extracted from the article]

Biodiversity metrics have become a ubiquitous component of conservation assessments across scales. However, whilst indices have become increasingly widely used, their ability to perform in the face of different biases has remained largely untested under realistic conditions. Citizen science data are increasingly available, but present new challenges and biases, thus understanding how to use them effectively is essential. Here, we built a virtual world incorporating BirdLife data and accounting for their biases, then explored how well commonly‐used diversity metrics could estimate known values across a suite of representative scenarios. We used predictive modelling to model bird diversity globally and overcome biases using the approaches found most accurate in prior assessments. Performance was highly variable across the different types of biases, but in many instances Simpson's index performed best, followed by Hill numbers, whereas Pielou's index was almost universally worst. From standardised tests, we then applied these metrics to eBird data using 611 520 112 samples of 10 359 species of bird (around 88% of known species), to reconstruct global diversity patterns at five and ten km resolutions. However, when we mapped out diversity using Maxent based on these indices, Simpson's index generally over‐predicted diversity, whereas Hill numbers were more conservative. Based on an average of the better projected indices, one can map out diversity across resolutions and overcome biases accurately predicting diversity patterns even for data‐poor areas, but if a single metric is used, Hill numbers are most robust to bias. Going forward, this workflow will enable standardized best practices for diversity mapping based on a clear understanding of the performance of different metrics. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Our knowledge of biodiversity hinges on sufficient data, reliable methods, and realistic models. Without an accurate assessment of species distributions, we cannot effectively target and stem biodiversity loss. Species range maps are the foundation of such efforts, but countless studies have failed to account for the most basic assumptions of reliable species mapping practices, undermining the credibility of their results and potentially misleading and hindering conservation and management efforts. Here, we use examples from the recent literature and broader conservation community to highlight the substantial shortfalls in current practices and their consequences for both analyses and conservation management. We detail how different decisions on data filtering impact the outcomes of analysis and provide practical recommendations and steps for more reliable analysis, whilst understanding the limits of what available data will reliably allow and what methods are most appropriate. Whilst perfect analyses are not possible for many taxa given limited data, and biases, ensuring we use data within reasonable limits and understanding inherent assumptions is crucial to ensure appropriate use. By embracing and enacting such best practices, we can ensure both the accuracy and improved comparability of biodiversity analyses going forward, ultimately enhancing our ability to use data to facilitate our protection of the natural world. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Simple Summary: Funnel light traps (FLTs) are effective in collecting insects as they are smaller, lighter, and easier to install than conventional light traps, and can be used in more remote areas; however, they can still be cost-prohibitive and logistically challenging, particularly in developing countries where much biodiversity remains to be discovered. In this study, we present a new, low-cost, UV-LED-based FLT trap that is both lightweight and easy to assemble and deploy in the field. Our field tests show that this trap is effective in collecting diverse insect samples in a range of habitats, including remote and difficult-to-access areas. Additionally, the trap's modular design allows for easy customization and standardization, enabling comparability across sites and studies. A novel design of a portable funnel light trap (PFLT) was presented for collecting insects in ecological studies. The trap consists of a compact plastic box equipped with a light source and power source, along with two plastic polypropylene interception vanes. The PFLT costs 18.3 USD per unit and weighs approximately 300 g. A maximum of six PFLT units can be packed in one medium-sized backpack (32 cm × 45 cm × 15 cm, 20 L), making it easier to set up multiple units in remote areas wherein biodiversity research is needed. The low cost and weight of the trap also allows for large-scale deployment. The design is customizable and can be easily manufactured to fit various research needs. To validate the PFLT's efficacy in collecting insects across different habitat types, a series of field experiments were conducted in South Korea and Laos, where 37 trials were carried out. The PFLT successfully collected 7497 insects without experiencing battery issues or damage by rain or wind. Insect compositions and abundances differed across the three sampled habitat types: forests, grasslands, and watersides. This new FLT trap is an important tool for studying and protecting insect biodiversity, particularly in areas wherein conventional light traps cannot be deployed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Molecular Ecology Resources is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)