A growing body of evidence supports wild bee and other pollinator population declines and accompanying pollinator community changes1,2,3,4. Continued losses threaten the very service of insect pollination vital to biodiversity maintenance, ecosystem function, and agricultural production5. Moreover, for many wild bees, especially rare species, significant knowledge gaps exist that can hinder appropriate management and conservation actions6,7.
To help address these data deficiencies, researchers have developed a variety of methods to study insect pollinators, associated habitat usage, and their floral preferences. While pan traps, blue-vane traps, malaise traps, emergence traps, and direct collection by hand netting are commonly utilized, many of these methods have significant drawbacks8,9,10,11. Commonly employed methods to identify the pollinator can result in organism mortality, regardless of whether the specimen must be identified in a lab setting (e.g., using a microscope). Mortality can be justifiable and necessary for many insect studies. However, when working with imperiled, rare, or understudied insects whose population statuses are limited or uncertain, researchers must mitigate organism mortality, injury, or stress to reduce the likelihood of negatively impacting these insect populations. Therefore, when working with at-risk species or species that can be easily identified by their key distinguishing features, less destructive sampling approaches should be taken if possible.
Non-lethal methods that have been proposed for the collection of genetic material from bees include collection of feces, exuviae12, and wing tips13. However, utilizing these methods on bees collected in the field may be untenable due to the time required and/or potential impact on wings, negatively affecting flight and other behaviors. Partial antennae removal has been shown to not compromise the survivorship of sampled euglossine bees14. Likewise, sampling of the terminal portion of the tarsus of the mid-leg did not significantly reduce Bombus terrestris worker survivorship15. An additional non-lethal sampling method involves collecting protein residues by temporarily immersing bees in a buffer solution and then subsequently releasing them16. Survival analysis showed that there were no significant differences between buffer-rinsed and unrinsed bees. There are limitations to each technique, which should be considered when addressing specific research questions and overall project goals.
Accurate taxonomic identification of organisms is critical for effective research. For many insect pollinator taxa, however, it is extremely contingent on the species of interest and the knowledge and experience level of the researcher or observer. While many bee species can be identified in the field, having evidence to support the observation can be critical. While most pollinator studies typically collect and retain individuals as evidence, the use of photos and videos, as well as three-dimensional videography using virtual reality can be utilized as a proxy to distinguish certain species without the sacrifice of the individuals being observed17. Differentiation between some species may require special attention and photographs of specific morphological features; in these situations, the organisms must be able to be manipulated and confined to a unique position such that the complex distinguishing characters can be reliably photographed.
Temporarily confining bees for identification can be done in several ways, including cooling the specimen and/or using carbon dioxide to slow bees18,19. However, these methods may alter behavior, resulting in treated bees being slower to regain activity, thereby possibly affecting foraging, organism fitness, or increasing the risk of predation20,21,22. Additionally, such techniques ultimately increase the time that organisms are confined and handled. This, in turn, increases organism stress and field processing time. Safer and more efficient methodologies would, therefore, be highly desirable.
A number of studies have used the pollen collected from bees or other sources to better understand foraging preferences, construct plant-pollinator interaction networks, identify environmental contamination (e.g., pesticide residues), and evaluate nutritional ecology23,24,25,26,27,28,29. Many bees will self-groom when confined in a container. Therefore, non-lethal methods of sampling for pollen have been utilized30 (e.g., microcentrifuge tubes). However, in cases where self-grooming does not take place, using a more tactile container, such as the resealable plastic bags used in this protocol, allows for gentle pressure to be applied to specific body parts so that the pollen comes in contact with the plastic bag, leading to a higher likelihood of getting a pollen sample than the use of traditional hard containers.
Here, we present a protocol that has been well-tested on three at-risk bee taxa. While labor intensive, it allows for comprehensive data collection from insect pollinators while minimizing the threat of mortality to the individual organisms. The overall goal of using this methodology is to provide a safe and effective means to capture, identify, and safely release insects. An added advantage of this protocol is that it overcomes many of the limitations of traditional insect collecting. It provides an easy way to mark individuals, collect non-lethal genetic material, and collect pollen samples, all while minimizing handling time and stress on the organism. While traditional insect collecting methods have many benefits31, to help overcome some of their limitations, we established an alternative so that insects can be confined for identification before a quick and safe release. Depending upon project goals, additional steps can also be taken while the bee is confined to collect other important data.