부산대학교 도서관

Insect pollinators, including bees and wasps, are facing a marked decline in their native populations, caused mainly by human activities, such as forest fragmentation, urbanization, and the use of agrochemicals. To help mitigate the rapid decline of pollinators, new efforts towards understanding basic and applied aspects of these organisms are necessary. Among these efforts, there is a focus on increasing the sampling efficiency, including a broader range of targeted groups and collection methods. Although each method has its advantages and disadvantages, the pollinators' crisis calls for alternative methods to analyze bee and wasp diversity and population dynamics. Here, we assess the potential role of incidental captures of bees and wasps by a method widely used to collect ants but not targeted for bees: arboreal pitfall traps. We compared the sampling efficiency of human urine‐baited arboreal pitfall traps and two traditional methods for bee sampling: pan traps and scent traps. Arboreal pitfalls collected a high diversity of bees and sphecoid wasps, and when compared with pan traps and scent traps, they had the highest species richness and the second‐highest abundance. Although the three trapping methods shared most species, each method collected particular groups of species, and there were indicator species for each trapping method. When used in pairs with pan traps, arboreal pitfalls collected a higher species diversity than pan traps paired with scent traps. In addition, each trapping method responded differently to seasonal variation, and although arboreal pitfalls had lower diversity during the rainy season, scent traps detected differences only in species abundance, and pan traps detected no differences at all. Our study reinforces the importance of complementary methods in sampling bees and wasps and the use of non‐traditional methods to increase the sampling coverage of these insects. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]