Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [beemonitoring] The Soap Collecting Jar

Expand Messages
  • Jack Neff
    Sam: I understand the utility of pan traps and the like for certain types of surveys, but I regret the generation of so many specimens with no biological
    Message 1 of 14 , Jun 4, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      Sam: I understand the utility of pan traps and the
      like for certain types of surveys, but I regret the
      generation of so many specimens with no biological
      information beyond it was there then. For bee
      biology, this is a step backwards. Hand collecting
      directly into soapy water, or alcohol or whatever, is
      a useful emergency technique but I would hope it would
      would not become a primary collecting method. The
      pollen that bees collect is valuable data and removing
      it as a matter of course, either as a byproduct of the
      collecting technique, or intentionally, as a matter
      of aesthetics or ease of identification, is something
      that should be discouraged. A rigorous analysis of
      diet breadth in bees requires pollen analysis and this
      is impossible for specimens that have been through the
      washer.

      best

      Jack
      --- frozenbeedoc@... wrote:

      > Hey Sam,
      >
      > I figured that out last summer (soap in collecting
      > jars). Forgot to tell
      > you. Worked well for me. I used a small jelly
      > canning jar. Easy to carry and
      > use.
      >
      > Anita
      >


      John L. Neff
      Central Texas Melittological Institute
      7307 Running Rope
      Austin,TX 78731 USA
      512-345-7219
    • Liz Day
      ... I would have to agree with this, only from the point of view of identifying bumblebees. Of course, they can be washed, and apparently can sometimes be
      Message 2 of 14 , Jun 4, 2008
      • 0 Attachment
        >Hand collecting directly into soapy water, or alcohol or whatever, is a useful emergency technique but I would hope it would would not become a primary collecting method.

        I would have to agree with this, only from the point of view of identifying bumblebees.
        Of course, they can be washed, and apparently can sometimes be restored to their original appearance, but from what I've seen, many are not completely restored, and remain a bit wet-looking.
        Because the color and texture of the coat of hair are important characters for ID, a poorly-restored bee can turn a 10-second determination into a two-minute one. If the bee wasn't cleaned up, a 10-second determination becomes a half hour one, or possibly none at all. It's much easier with specimens whose hair never got wet.
        I don't know if this outweighs the other benefits or not.

        Cheers,
        Liz


        ---------------------------
        Liz Day
        Indianapolis, Indiana, USA
        lizday44@...
        ---------------------------
      • Sam Droege
        Jack: I agree, in general...the soapy water collection does destroy all pollen and that has been a valuable contribution to bee natural history and thus
        Message 3 of 14 , Jun 4, 2008
        • 0 Attachment
          Jack:

          I agree, in general...the soapy water collection does destroy all pollen and that has been a valuable contribution to bee natural history and thus collecting fresh specimens and placing them in the museum are always to be encouraged.  However, much of what we are doing are general surveys of relatively common species (though with surprises) and our limiting factor is usually time, so we are attracted to some of the bowl techniques.  In reality I almost always use both.  I put out bowls in the early A.M. and net collect through the day.  Each collection technique emphasizes a different fraction of the bee community.  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.  

          In the end it depends on what your project and goals as to what combination you use.  In many circumstances a nice array of Malaise traps is really the ticket...but then these have a separate set of issues.

          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


          "...and though the holes were rather small, they had to count them all..."

          A day in the life.
          Sargent Peppers
          Beatles



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


          Jack Neff <jlnatctmi@...>
          Sent by: beemonitoring@yahoogroups.com

          06/04/2008 02:30 PM

          Please respond to
          beemonitoring@yahoogroups.com

          To
          beemonitoring@yahoogroups.com
          cc
          Subject
          Re: [beemonitoring] The Soap Collecting Jar





          Sam: I understand the utility of pan traps and the
          like for certain types of surveys, but I regret the
          generation of so many specimens with no biological
          information beyond it was there then. For bee
          biology, this is a step backwards. Hand collecting
          directly into soapy water, or alcohol or whatever, is
          a useful emergency technique but I would hope it would
          would not become a primary collecting method. The
          pollen that bees collect is valuable data and removing
          it as a matter of course, either as a byproduct of the
          collecting technique, or intentionally, as a matter
          of aesthetics or ease of identification, is something
          that should be discouraged. A rigorous analysis of
          diet breadth in bees requires pollen analysis and this
          is impossible for specimens that have been through the
          washer.

          best

          Jack
          ---
          frozenbeedoc@... wrote:

          > Hey Sam,
          >
          > I figured that out last summer (soap in collecting
          > jars). Forgot to tell
          > you. Worked well for me. I used a small jelly
          > canning jar. Easy to carry and
          > use.
          >
          > Anita
          >

          John L. Neff
          Central Texas Melittological Institute
          7307 Running Rope
          Austin,TX 78731 USA
          512-345-7219


        • T'ai Roulston
          ... Sam: A lot of people are repeating statements similar to this, casually and in submitted manuscripts. Certainly, any standardized collecting is more
          Message 4 of 14 , Jun 4, 2008
          • 0 Attachment

             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

          • Sam Droege
            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
            Message 5 of 14 , Jun 5, 2008
            • 0 Attachment

              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
              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
              Message 6 of 14 , Jun 5, 2008
              • 0 Attachment
                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@USGS. GOV                      
                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@virginia. edu> 
                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/collecti ng 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@virginia. edu 




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

              • Jerry_Freilich@nps.gov
                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
                Message 7 of 14 , Jun 5, 2008
                • 0 Attachment
                  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@virginia.e
                  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
                • Sam Droege
                  Jerry: Very interesting comparison. There is quite a large literature on inter-observer differences now in bird counts, particularly the common point count
                  Message 8 of 14 , Jun 5, 2008
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Jerry:

                    Very interesting comparison.  There is quite a large literature on inter-observer differences now in bird counts, particularly the common point count system.  The results demonstrate that, no surprise, there are quite large differences in abilities to detect birds among observers.  Due to all of that we almost always model in an observer co-variable when looking at trend data.  A similar thing is generally to be expected in any skill-based system of counting or catching wildlife as your turtle work clearly shows (very interesting there wasn't a clear association with training!).  I think the main feature in the case of bowls is the more interesting notion of whether people somehow affect capture rates due to a way they may be laying out the bowls and also whether bowl captures are more variable due to differential capture rates under different conditions.

                    In the later regard we have 2 projects this summer that hopefully will bear on the topic of variability of captures due to extrinsic factors.

                    1.  Patty String will be working in Northern Virginia on stormwater ponds.  These ubiquitous ponds are mown once a year through a county contract and she has been collecting permissions from the various landowners to do a before/after/control/treatment experiment.  The general idea is to see if capture rates change (generally thought to increase) after mowing due to a loss of nectar resources and perhaps an increased visibility.

                    2.  Leo Shapiro will be working with Region 5 (Virginia to New England) National Wildlife Refuges to look at variability of bowl captures across and among refuges on a set of fields on a fixed day and in some cases across several days.  This will give us some idea about how bowl captures of bees vary from field to field which will give us some sense of sample size allocation, biodiversity estimation, uniformity (or lack there of) of regional populations of bees, etc.  Leo emailed today and we will be talking tomorrow about the possibility of adding a separate net component, but since we only got one third of what we requested, we likely won't be able to do that much.

                    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


                    Excuse my wandering.
                    How can one be orderly with this?
                    It's like counting leaves in a garden,
                    along with the sound notes of partridges,
                    and crows.
                    Sometimes organization
                    and computation become absurd.
                                       Rumi
                    P Please don't print this e-mail unless really needed.


                    Jerry_Freilich@...
                    Sent by: beemonitoring@yahoogroups.com

                    06/05/2008 11:43 AM

                    Please respond to
                    beemonitoring@yahoogroups.com

                    To
                    beemonitoring@yahoogroups.com
                    cc
                    Subject
                    Re: [beemonitoring] The Soap Collecting Jar





                    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@virginia.e
                    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



                  • frozenbeedoc@cs.com
                    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
                    Message 9 of 14 , Jun 5, 2008
                    • 0 Attachment
                      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
                    • OOWONBS@Netscape.net
                      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
                      Message 10 of 14 , Jun 6, 2008
                      • 0 Attachment
                        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)
                      • frozenbeedoc@cs.com
                        BillSF9c et al., Your question: Is this valid for bees that have been in soapy water all day, bounced around in a shirt pocket, or just those... under an
                        Message 11 of 14 , Jun 6, 2008
                        • 0 Attachment
                          BillSF9c et al.,

                          Your question:
                          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?"

                          I think it's true even for those bounced around in a shirt pocket.  Unless of course you're doing some major jumping jacks.  I collect what's in the bowls (in soapy water 24-28 hrs), carry it around in netting for half hour or so, until I get back to the "lab in the car" and then put them in alcohol, whirl-paked.  More bouncing around in alcohol.  And you still have to vigorously shake for at least 60 secs in a small fruit jar in soapy water again.  Plus a number of rinses.  Even then, I still have some pollen in some corners, expecially the most hairy items. 

                          Enough to id the pollen?  I'd think so. 

                          Best,
                          Anita

                          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


                        • David_r_smith@fws.gov
                          After reading about the concern regarding pollen loss when bees are collected and transported, I have to ask; Are ther standardized methods for collecting
                          Message 12 of 14 , Jun 9, 2008
                          • 0 Attachment

                            After reading about the concern regarding pollen loss when bees are collected and transported, I have to ask; Are ther standardized methods for collecting pollen fron collected bees and what references are out there to identify pollen (especially from the western United States).
                          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.