We demonstrate a tested method for safely handling field-collected bees. This method allows swift manipulation, identification, genetic sampling, and confirmation of plant-insect interactions via pollen collected while sampling. Easily adaptable, this approach offers a cost-effective, non-lethal means to study rare insect groups.
Improving understanding of the basic biology and ecology of many insect pollinators, particularly specialist or rare taxa, is a priority for many researchers. As such, there is often a need to temporarily confine field-collected organisms in a non-injurious manner in order to gain information or support additional studies. This protocol represents a thoroughly tested, quick, and inexpensive field method for safely handling bees of conservation concern that can easily be tailored toward specific project needs, including organism identification, pollen removal, marking, and/or collection of non-lethal tissue samples for genetic analysis. This methodology can serve as an additional option in the researcher's toolbox to use when certain scenarios arise. It is anticipated that this methodology can be adapted for use with other insect species as well as used by individuals of varying experience and skill levels. It can be of great value to researchers studying specialist bees or conducting host-specific studies. The data collection made possible by this protocol will be invaluable to help researchers address critical data gaps for many pollinator species, plant-pollinator network structures, and pollinator conservation and management initiatives.
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.
1. Field collection preparation
2. Capturing and securing organism
3. Identify the organism
4. Obtaining non-lethal genetic samples from antennae
5. Marking the organism
6. Pollen sample collection
This methodology has been used for three at-risk bee species (Osmia calaminthae, Caupolicana floridana, and C. electa) in the southeastern United States. To date, hundreds of bees and wasps have safely been collected and released. No bees died while using this methodology; those designated as voucher specimens and kept as a new location record with the appropriate managing agency were appropriately sacrificed after data collection. Table 1 shows different morphological features evaluated as well as other quantifiable data that can be collected using this protocol14,32,33,34,35,36.
Figure 1: Example data sheet showing data that could be collected while in the field. The specific data collected will vary based on project goals. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.
Figure 2: Photos to serve as vouchers. Taking photos to serve as vouchers of the occurrence is essential for reporting purposes. Photos of distinct identifying features are necessary when multiple species share similar characteristics. This Anthidium maculifrons found in Florida can be distinguished from others in the genus based upon the yellow on its scape and head. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.
Figure 3: Placing the hole in the resealable sample bag. The placement of the hole in the resealable sample bag can be altered to get specific body parts of interest exposed for photographs or genetic samples. In this composite photo, the (A) bee's head, (B) abdomen, and (C) leg are exposed to the photograph. Once the bee is confined and cannot move, it often rests and can be positioned to get a macrophotograph. (D) A genetic sample can also be taken when the bee is in these positions. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.
Figure 4: Collection bag with bee showing one corner diagonally cut. If wanting to closely observe the head of the bee, the cut on the corner of the bag will vary in size based on the head size of the bee. Pollen and even nectar secretions may be found in the bag for future pollen identification. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.
Figure 5: Images of resealable sample bag with bees. To avoid getting stung while marking the bee, a hole can be made in the bag, and the (A) thorax can be positioned under the hole. (B) Depending upon the size of the bee, it can also be marked on the abdomen. (C) Alternatively, the bee can also be released from the corner hole and compressed at the thorax for marking. This technique can increase the chance of getting stung but seems to minimize pen smearing. Unique coloring/numbering can be used to differentiate between individuals. (D) Future recaptured specimens can quickly and easily be photographed through the resealable sample bag and released. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.
Table 1: Morphological features evaluated using this protocol. Samples can also be manipulated to observe and document numerous traits not represented in this table (e.g., tergite/sternite shape, overall length, weight, number of teeth, wing venation, intertegular distance, etc.). Please click here to download this Table.
This protocol outlines a field method for safely handling and inspecting rare bees with the end goal of obtaining desired non-lethal sample or voucher information and safely releasing focal individuals back into the wild at the original point of capture. The benefits of this protocol over other collection methods, such as the use of vials, are that the specimen can be safely confined to allow for close examination of key features and confident identification, limiting harm to both the insect and investigator. Conversely, as is the case with other methodologies18,19, this protocol does not require the specimen to be anesthetized; it can be sampled and released quickly with minimal handling. Resealable sample bags are low-cost, easy to acquire, lightweight, extremely portable, and recyclable, making them a great alternative to centrifuge tubes. As they lack the rigidity of some alternatives (e.g., falcon tubes or other hard containers), it is important to take extra care when handling live insect specimens. If an entire specimen is to be taken as a voucher, placing it in a sturdy enclosure will reduce potential damage to the specimen.
It is beneficial for researchers using this method to have experience with handling bees and/or other insects because applying too much pressure on the specimens while they are in the bag could result in injury or mortality. To get more experience handling bees, novice researchers should practice this protocol using more common species (e.g., honey bees). Practice will help minimize injury or mortality to the insect. It is important to note that depending upon the focal taxon, there may be limitations to this methodology. The reduced size of specific taxa may require the use of more costly and specialized macro photography equipment and/or the use of field microscopes as their features may not be able to be isolated and photographed with the materials listed in this procedure, the smaller the target, the harder it can be to get adequate images37. Additionally, in instances where inaccessible body parts are required (e.g., tongue, genitalia, etc.), other methods for identification may be warranted. Genitalia is among the most informative diagnostic traits for insects, which can be highly variable between species and somewhat stable within them38,39. In this case, lethal methods, such as dissection, may be necessary. However, for hard-to-identify species, the use of small, non-lethal genetic samples can be used for identification after field collection40, and the methodology described here can be used to collect such samples. Statistical modeling is also being developed to help associate imaging and DNA sequencing for insect identification41.
Another limitation of the methodology presented here concerns the probability of getting stung when performing this protocol, especially when having a hole cut in the bag. This protocol, however, minimizes the likelihood of getting stung; the authors have only rarely been stung through specimen bags while handling specimens. It should also be noted that some species of bees, beetles, and wasps have been able to cut the bags using their mandibles, so care should be taken when determining if this approach will work for the taxa of interest and, in these instances, thicker plastic bags or other methodologies would be recommended. In all instances, users should minimize using one-time-use plastics and recycle when possible.
The focal taxon for the development of this protocol was the blue calamintha bee, Osmia calaminthae (Hymenoptera: Megachilidae), which measures approximately 10-11 mm in size32. Since developing this method, the authors have employed it on a variety of other hymenopterans of various sizes, including larger Bombus species (Hymnenoptera: Apidae) and Caupolicana species, C. electa and C. floridana (Hymenoptera: Colletidae). Caupolicana electa can vary from 18-23 mm, while C. floridana can vary from 16-18 mm33. To help minimize any negative impacts to at-risk, imperiled or listed species, it is recommended to try it on closely related and/or common surrogates first to help gain experience and build proficiency. The exoskeleton of bees and other insects can vary, and less robust specimens should be treated with care. In situations where smaller or softer bodies of insects are being studied, this methodology may not be sufficient. Users must determine which parts of this methodology will be appropriate for their focal taxon.
Beyond the primary goal of confining field-collected organisms for identification, this protocol can be modified to perform various research-related tasks for which bees need to be safely confined. For example, organisms can be weighed in the field while in the resealable sample bags. Researchers can also take various measurements of specimens using calipers while the insect is constrained. For example, the estimation of the homing ability of bees can be done using body size42; our methodology could help acquire data that would facilitate such estimation. Likewise, instead of using calipers, researchers can place and photograph a ruler/scale bar and/or color card directly behind the specimen to measure key morphological features when processing images later. Future applications of this method could leverage advancements in artificial intelligence and machine learning. Identification, both in the field and in the lab, could be streamlined using smart devices, thereby minimizing handling time and stress on specimens.
The authors wish to thank Ivone de Bem Oliveira, Jon Elmquist, Emily Khazan, Nancy Kimmel, and Kristin Rossetti for reviewing this manuscript. This research was funded through a grant from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service administered by the Florida Fish & Wildlife Conservation Commission (Agreement No. 19008) and funds from the Florida Biodiversity Foundation.
Name | Company | Catalog Number | Comments |
30x 60x illuminated jewelers eye loupe magnifier | JARLINK | Hand lens (if necessary) for observing diagnostic characteristics | |
Aerial hand net | |||
Bleech in wash bottle | Only needed for non-lethal genetic sampling | ||
Blunt-tip kids scissors | Fiskar | Blunt-tip scissors are beneficial because they can safely be kept in pockets | |
Ethanol in wash bottle | Only needed for non-lethal genetic sampling | ||
FD-1 flash diffuser | Olympus | Flash Diffuser to illuminate specimen while taking voucher photos | |
Field clipboard | |||
Field cooler | |||
Fine forceps | |||
Fine point oil-based paint marker set | Sharpie | Pens to mark bees | |
Kimwipes | Kimtech | ||
Microcentrifuge tubes | Only needed for non-lethal genetic sampling | ||
Resealable sample bag | Amazon | Dependent on specimen of interest. We prefer 50.8 mm x 76.2 mm or 50.8 mm x 50.8 mm - Edvision 2" x 3" Plastic Bags, 200 Count 2 Mil Transparent Resealable Zipper Poly Bags, Reclosable Storage Bags for Jewelry Supplies, Beads, Screws, Small Items - Soft 'N Style 500 Count Resealable Zipper Poly Bags, 2 by 2-Inch, 50mm by 50mm, Clear | |
Stainless steel iris dissecting scissors | More precise than blunt-tipped scissors. Should be kept in a secure location. | ||
TG-7 or similar camera | Olympus | Camera with macro setting to take voucher photos |
This article has been published
Video Coming Soon
ABOUT JoVE
Copyright © 2024 MyJoVE Corporation. All rights reserved