To enrich or not to enrich? Are there any benefits of using multiple colors of pan traps when sampling aculeate Hymenoptera?
The decline of Aculeata has raised concerns regarding their conservation and the maintenance of their function as important pollinators. Pan trapping is among the most frequently used methods for monitoring these organisms. Numerous researchers have suggested using pan traps of multiple colors in addition to the yellow traps. Here we provide the first data for the color preferences of European Aculeata by analyzing 5,421 individuals from 356 species of bees and wasps obtained using white, yellow, turquoise and pink pan traps. The total capture rates and diversity were higher in the white and yellow traps over the turquoise and pink ones. The species-specific abundance did not follow changes in the total capture rates. Nevertheless, only seven (of the 96 most commonly captured species) were captured at low rates in the yellow traps, but were obtained at high rates in the white traps. Only two species (Apis mellifera and Priocnemis minuta) were captured preferentially to other than white or yellow traps. Importantly, caution is needed when assessing the sex ratios of Aculeata obtained by pan trapping because many Aculeata display sex-specific color preferences. For example, in Dasypoda hirtipes, we captured 14 of 16 males in the yellow traps, but obtained 34 of 38 females in the turquoise traps. We provide experimental evidence that the females of numerous oligolectic bees (collecting pollen for their brood on a few specific plant species) display more stringent trap color preferences than their males, which correlates with their observed flower color preferences.
KeywordsColor preferences Ecosystem services Insect diversity Insect pollinators Invertebrate surveys Moericke traps Trap bias Yellow pan traps
The study was supported by the PRVOUK project P31/2012 from the Charles University in Prague, and by the Specifický výzkum projects 2101/2013 and 2102/2013 from the University of Hradec Králové. We thank Lukáš Nývlt and Pavlína Tauchmanová for their help with field sampling. We thank Pavel Tyrner and Jakub Straka for the revision of several specimens from the Chrysididae and Pompilidae families.
- Bashir MA, Saeed S, Sajjad A (2013) Monitoring Hymenoptera and Diptera pollinators in a subtropical forest of Southern Punjab, Pakistan. Pak J Agric Sci 50:359–366Google Scholar
- Cane JH, Minclkey RL, Kervin LJ (2000) Sampling bees (Hymenoptera: Apiformes) for pollinator community studies: pitfalls of pan-trapping. J Kans Entomol Soc 73:225–231Google Scholar
- Clare G, Suchling DM, Bradley SJ, Walker JTS, Shaw PW, Daly JM, McLaren GF, Wearing CH (2000) Pheromone trap colour determines catch of non-terget insects. N Zeal Plant Prot 53:216–220Google Scholar
- Disney RHL, Erzinçlioglu YZ, Henshaw DDC, Howse D, Unwin DM, Withers P, Woods A (1982) Collecting methods and the adequacy of attempted fauna surveys with reference to the Diptera. Field Stud 5:607–621Google Scholar
- Edwards R, Telfer MG (eds) (2001) Provisional atlas of the aculeate Hymenoptera of Britain and Ireland. Part 3. Biological Records Centre, HuntingdonGoogle Scholar
- Faegri K, van der Pijl L (1980) The principles of pollination ecology, 3rd edn. Pergamon Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
- Farkač J, Král D, Škorpík M (eds) (2005) [Red list of threatened species in the Czech Republic. Invertebrates]. AOPK ČR, Prague (in Czech)Google Scholar
- Hammer Ø, Harper DAT, Ryan PD (2001) PAST: paleontological statistics software package for education and data analysis. Palaeontol Electron 4:1–9Google Scholar
- Herman TJB, Cameron PJ, Walker GP (1994) Effect of pheromone trap position and colour on tomato fruit worm moths and bumblebees. Proc 47th N Zeal Plant Prot Soc Conf, Wellington, pp 154–158Google Scholar
- Krebs CJ (1989) Ecological methodology. Harper and Row, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- Michener CD (2007) The bees of the world, 2nd edn. Johns Hopkins University Press, BaltimoreGoogle Scholar
- Nielsen A, Steffan-Dewenter I, Westphal C, Messinger O, Potts SG, Roberts SPM, Settele J, Szentgyörgyi H, Vaissière BE, Vaitis M, Woyciechowski M, Bazos I, Biesmeijer JC, Bommarco R, Kunin WE, Tscheulin T, Lamborn E, Petanidou T (2011) Assessing bee species richness in two Mediterranean communities: importance of habitat type and sampling techniques. Ecol Res 26:969–983CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- O’Neill KM (2001) Solitary wasps: behavior and natural history. Comstock Publishing Associates, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- Poole RW (1974) An introduction to quantitative ecology. McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- Ramírez-Freire L, Alanís-Flores GJ, Ayala-Barajas R, Quiroz-Martýnez H, Velazco-Macías CG (2012) Las abejas del género Agapostemon (Hymenoptera: Halictidae) del estado de Nuevo León, México. Rev Mex Biodivers 83:63–72Google Scholar
- Toler TR, Evans EW, Tepedino VJ (2005) Pan-trapping for bees (Hymenoptera: Apiformes) in Utah’s West Desert: the importance of color diversity. Pan-Pac Entomol 81:103–113Google Scholar
- Tuell JK, Ascher JS, Isaacs R (2009) Wild bees (Hymenoptera: Apoidea: Anthophila) of the Michigan highbush blueberry agroecosystem. Cons Biol Biodivers 102:275–287Google Scholar
- von Frisch K (1971) Bees: their vision, chemical senses, and language. Cornell University Press, IthacaGoogle Scholar
- Westrich P (1989) Die Wildbienen Baden-Württembergs. Eugen Ulmer Verlag, StuttgartGoogle Scholar