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

Re: [beemonitoring] The Soap Collecting Jar

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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 8 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.