Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

A comparison of techniques for assessing farmland bumblebee populations

  • Methods
  • Published:
Oecologia Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Agri-environment schemes have been implemented across the European Union in order to reverse declines in farmland biodiversity. To assess the impact of these schemes for bumblebees, accurate measures of their populations are required. Here, we compared bumblebee population estimates on 16 farms using three commonly used techniques: standardised line transects, coloured pan traps and molecular estimates of nest abundance. There was no significant correlation between the estimates obtained by the three techniques, suggesting that each technique captured a different aspect of local bumblebee population size and distribution in the landscape. Bumblebee abundance as observed on the transects was positively influenced by the number of flowers present on the transect. The number of bumblebees caught in pan traps was positively influenced by the density of flowers surrounding the trapping location and negatively influenced by wider landscape heterogeneity. Molecular estimates of the number of nests of Bombus terrestris and B. hortorum were positively associated with the proportion of the landscape covered in oilseed rape and field beans. Both direct survey techniques are strongly affected by floral abundance immediately around the survey site, potentially leading to misleading results if attempting to infer overall abundance in an area or on a farm. In contrast, whilst the molecular method suffers from an inability to detect sister pairs at low sample sizes, it appears to be unaffected by the abundance of forage and thus is the preferred survey technique.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Baum KA, Wallen KE (2011) Potential bias in pan trapping as a function of floral abundance. J Kansas Entomol Soc 84:155–159

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Benton TG, Vickery JA, Wilson JD (2003) Farmland biodiversity: is habitat heterogeneity the key? Trends Ecol Evol 18:182–188

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Biesmeijer JC, Roberts SPM, Reemer M, Ohlemuller R, Edwards M, Peeters T, Schaffers AP, Potts SG, Kleukers R, Thomas CD, Settele J, Kunin WE (2006) Parallel declines in pollinators and insect pollinated plants in Britain and the Netherlands. Science 313:351–354

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Brittain C, Williams N, Kremen C, Klein A-M (2013) Synergistic effects of non-Apis bees and honey bees for pollination services. Proc R Soc Lond B 280:1–7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cane JH, Minckley RL, Kervin LJ (2000) Sampling bees (Hymenoptera: Apiformes) for pollinator community studies: pitfalls of pan-trapping. J Kansas Entomol Soc 73:225–231

    Google Scholar 

  • Carvell C, Roy DB, Smart SM, Pywell RF, Preston CD, Goulson D (2006) Declines in forage availability for bumblebees at a national scale. Biol Conserv 132:481–489

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carvell C, Meek WR, Pywell RF, Goulson D, Nowakowski N (2007) Comparing the efficacy of agri-environment schemes to enhance bumblebee abundance and diversity on arable field margins. J Appl Ecol 44:29–40

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carvell C, Osborne JL, Bourke AFG, Freeman SN, Pywell RF, Heard MS (2011) Bumble bee species responses to a targeted conservation measure depend on landscape context and habitat quality. Ecol Appl 21:1760–1771

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Dornhaus A, Chittka L (1999) Evolutionary origins of bee dances. Nature 401:38

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Estoup A, Scholl A, Pouvreau A, Solignac M (1995) Monandry and polyandry in bumble bees (Hymenoptera; Bombinae) as evidenced by highly variable microsatellites. Mol Ecol 4:89–93

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Estoup A, Solignac M, Cornuet M, Goudet J, Scholl A (1996) Genetic differentiation of continental and island populations of Bombus terrestris (Hymenoptera: Apidae) in Europe. Mol Ecol 5:19–31

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Fuentes-Montemayor E, Goulson D, Cavin L, Wallace JM, Park KJ (2012) Factors influencing moth assemblages in woodland fragments on farmland: implications for woodland management and creation schemes. Biol Conserv 153:265–275

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garibaldi LA, Steffan-Dewenter I, Kremen C et al (2011) Stability of pollinator services decreases with isolation from natural areas despite honey bee visits. Ecol Lett 14:1062–1072

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Garibaldi LA, Steffan-Dewenter I, Winfree R et al (2013) Wild pollinators enhance fruit set regardless of honey bee abundance. Science 339:1608–1611

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Goulson D (2010) Bumblebees: Behaviour, Ecology and Conservation, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Goulson D, Hughes WOH, Derwent LC, Stout JC (2002) Colony growth of the bumblebee, Bombus terrestris, in improved and conventional agricultural and suburban habitats. Oecologia 130:267–273

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goulson D, Hanley ME, Darvill B, Ellis JS, Knight ME (2005) Causes of rarity in bumblebees. Biol Conserv 122:1–8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goulson D, Lepais O, O’Connor S, Osborne JL, Sanderson RA, Cussans J, Goffe L, Darvill B (2010) Effects of land use at a landscape scale on bumblebee nest density and survival. J Appl Ecol 47:1207–1215

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grixti JC, Wong LT, Cameron SA, Favret C (2009) Decline of bumble bees (Bombus) in the North American Midwest. Biol Conserv 142:75–84

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heard MS, Carvell C, Carreck NL, Rothery P, Osborne JL, Bourke AFG (2007) Landscape context not patch size determines bumble-bee density on flower mixtures sown for agri-environment schemes. Biol Lett 3:638–641

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Herrmann F, Westphal C, Moritz RFA, Steffan-Dewenter I (2007) Genetic diversity and mass resources promote colony size and forager densities of a social bee (Bombus pascuorum) in agricultural landscapes. Mol Ecol 16:1167–1178

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Holehouse KA, Hammond RL, Bourke AFG (2003) Non-lethal sampling of DNA from bumble bees for conservation genetics. Insectes Soc 50:277–285

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jones O, Wang J (2009) COLONY: a program for parentage and sibship inference from multilocus genotype data. Mol Ecol Resour 10:551–555

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kells AR, Goulson D (2003) Preferred nesting sites of bumblebee queens (Hymenoptera: Apidae) in agroecosystems in the UK. Biol Conserv 109:165–174

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kleijn D, Sutherland WJ (2003) How effective are European agri-environment schemes in conserving and promoting biodiversity? J Appl Ecol 40:947–969

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kleijn D, Baquero RA, Clough Y et al (2006) Mixed biodiversity benefits of agri-environment schemes in five European countries. Ecol Lett 9:243–254

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Klein A-M, Steffan-Dewenter I, Tscharntke T (2003) Fruit set of highland coffee increases with the diversity of pollinating bees. Proc R Soc Lond B 270:955–961

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klein A-M, Vaissiere BE, Cane JH, Steffan-Dewenter I, Cunningham S, Kremen C, Tscharntke T (2007) Importance of pollinators in changing landscape for world crops. Proc R Soc Lond B 274:303–313

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Knight ME, Martin AP, Bishop S, Osborne JL, Hale RJ, Sanderson RA, Goulson D (2005) An interspecific comparison of foraging range and nest density of four bumblebee (Bombus) species. Mol Ecol 14:1811–1820

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kosior A, Celary W, Olejniczak P, Fijal J, Krol W, Solarz W, Plonka P (2007) The decline of the bumble bees and cuckoo bees (Hymenoptera: Apidae: Bombini) of Western and Central Europe. Oryx 41:79–88

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leong JM, Thorp RW (1999) Colour-coded sampling: the pan trap colour preferences of oligolectic and non-oligolectic bees associated with a vernal pool plant. Ecol Entomol 24:329–335

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lepais O, Darvill B, O’Connor S, Osborne JL, Sanderson RA, Cussans J, Goffe L, Goulson D (2010) Estimation of bumblebee queen dispersal distances using sibship reconstruction method. Mol Ecol 19:819–831

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Miller CR, Joyce P, Waits LP (2005) A new method for estimating the size of small populations from genetic mark–recapture data. Mol Ecol 14:1991–2005

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Morandin LA, Kremen C (2013) Hedgerow restoration promotes pollinator populations and exports native bees to adjacent fields. Ecol Appl 23:829–839

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Natural Research Council (2006) Status of pollinators in north america, National Academies Press, Washington, D.C.

  • O’Connor S, Park KJ, Goulson D (2012) Humans versus dogs: a comparison of methods for the detection of bumblebee nests. J Apic Res 51:204–211

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Osborne JL, Williams IH (1996) Bumblebees as pollinators of crops and wild flowers. In: Matheson A (ed) Bumblebees for pleasure and profit. IBRA, Cardiff, pp 24–32

    Google Scholar 

  • Osborne JL, Clark SJ, Morris RJ, Williams IH, Riley JR, Smith AD, Reynolds DR, Edwards AS (1999) A landscape- scale study of bumble bee foraging range and constancy, using harmonic radar. J Appl Ecol 36:519–533

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Osborne JL, Martin AP, Shortall CR, Todd AD, Goulson D, Knight ME, Hale RJ, Sanderson RA (2008) Quantifying and comparing bumblebee nest densities in gardens and countryside habitats. J Appl Ecol 45:784–792

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pollard E, Yates TJ (1993) Monitoring butterflies for ecology and conservation. Chapman and Hall, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Potts SG, Biesmeijer JC, Kremen C, Neumann P, Schweiger O, Kunin WE (2010) Global pollinator declines: trends, impacts and drivers. Trends Ecol Evol 25:345–353

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Pywell RF, Warman EA, Hulmes L, Hulmes S, Nuttall P, Sparks TH, Critchley CNR, Sherwood A (2006) Effectiveness of new agri-environment schemes in providing foraging resources for bumblebees in intensively farmed landscapes. Biol Conserv 129:192–206

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roulston TH, Smith SA, Brewster AL (2007) A comparison of pan trap and intensive net sampling techniques for documenting a bee (Hymenoptera) fauna. J Kansas Entomol Soc 80:179–181

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scheper J, Holzschuh A, Kuussaari M, Potts SG, Rundlöf M, Smith HG, Kleijn D (2013) Environmental factors driving the effectiveness of European agri-environment measures in mitigating pollinator loss—a meta-analysis. Ecol Lett 16:912–920

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Schmid-Hempel R, Schmid-Hempel P (2000) Mating frequencies in Bombus spp. from Central Europe. Insectes Soc 47:36–41

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steffan-Dewenter I, Munzenberg U, Burger C, Thies C, Tscharntke T (2002) Scale-dependent effects of landscape context on three pollinator guilds. Ecology 83:1421–1432

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stephen WP, Rao S (2005) Unscented color traps for non-Apis bees (Hymenoptera: Apiformes). J Kansas Entomol Soc 78:373–380

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sunderland KD, De Snoo GR, Dinter A, Hance T, Helenius J, Jepson P, Kromp B, Samu F, Sotherton NW, Ulber B, Vangsgaard C (1995) Density estimation for invertebrate predators in agroecosystems. Acta Jutland 70:133–164

    Google 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 81:103–113

    Google Scholar 

  • Truett GE, Heeger P, Mynatt RL, Truett AA, Walker JA, Warman ML (2000) Preparation of PCR-quality mouse genomic DNA with hot sodium hydroxide and tris (HotSHOT). Biotechniques 29:52–54

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Tscharntke T, Gathmann A, Steffan-Dewenter I (1998) Bioindication using trap-nesting bees and wasps and their natural enemies: community structure and interactions. J Appl Ecol 35:708–719

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walther-Hellwig K, Frankl R (2000) Foraging distances of Bombus muscorum, Bombus lapidarius and Bombus terrestris (Hymenoptera, Apidae). J Insect Behav 13:239–246

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Westphal C, Steffan-Dewenter I, Tscharntke T (2003) Mass flowering crops enhance pollinator densities at a landscape scale. Ecol Lett 6:961–965

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Westphal C, Steffan-Dewenter I, Tscharntke T (2006) Bumblebees experience landscapes at different spatial scales: possible implications for coexistence. Oecologica 149:289–300

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Westphal C, Bommarco R, Carre G et al (2008) Measuring bee diversity in different European habitats and biogeographical regions. Ecol Monogr 78:653–671

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williams PH, Osborne JL (2009) Bumblebee vulnerability and conservation worldwide. Apidologie 40:367–387

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williams PH et al (2005) Does specialization explain rarity and decline among British bumblebees? A response to Goulson. Biol Conserv 122:33–43

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williams NM, Regetz J, Kremen C (2012) Landscape-scale resources promote colony growth but not reproductive performance of bumble bees. Ecology 93:1049–1058

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Winfree R, Williams NM, Duschoff J, Kremen C (2007) Native bees provide insurance against ongoing honeybee losses. Ecol Lett 10:1105–1113

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank all farmers for access to their land during the survey and the two reviewers who provided many helpful comments. This research was funded by the Natural Environment Research Council grant NE/J016802/1 and the Game & Wildlife Conservation Trust.

Conflict of intrest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Life Sciences, The University of Sussex, Falmer, Sussex, BN1 9QG, UK

    T. J. Wood & D. Goulson

  2. The Game and Wildlife Conservation Trust, Burgate Manor, Fordingbridge, Hampshire, SP6 1EF, UK

    J. M. Holland

Authors
  1. T. J. Wood
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. J. M. Holland
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. D. Goulson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to T. J. Wood.

Additional information

Communicated by Ingolf Steffan-Dewenter.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Wood, T.J., Holland, J.M. & Goulson, D. A comparison of techniques for assessing farmland bumblebee populations. Oecologia 177, 1093–1102 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00442-015-3255-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00442-015-3255-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation