Scholarly shortcomings and a lack of evidence beleaguer bee sampling critique: A response to Prendergast and Hogendoorn

Date

2021

Authors

Saunders, Manu
Hall, Mark
Lentini, Pia E.
Brown, Julian
Cunningham, Saul

Journal Title

Journal ISSN

Volume Title

Publisher

Blackwell Science Asia

Abstract

Prendergast and Hogendoorn (2021) comment on the ‘methodological shortcomings’ of Australian bee studies, but forgo the opportunity to provide a balanced assessment of the relative merits of different survey methods to inform future studies (for a constructive example of this see Packer & Darla‐West 2021). Instead, they single out standardised survey tools for bees (pan traps and vane traps) as the focus of their criticism and strongly advocate sweep netting and direct observation by skilled entomologists as the ‘pre‐eminen[t]’ methods for bee surveys. They consistently criticise the published work of a small number of Australian authors (particularly ourselves) and claim that any results from pan trap and vane trap samples lead to ‘incorrect conclusions’ about bee biodiversity.

Description

Keywords

Citation

Source

Austral Ecology

Type

Journal article

Book Title

Entity type

Access Statement

License Rights

DOI

10.1111/aec.13042

Restricted until

2099-12-31