Scholarly shortcomings and a lack of evidence beleaguer bee sampling critique: A response to Prendergast and Hogendoorn (2021)

Prendergast and Hogendoorn (2021) comment on the ‘methodological shortcomings’ of Australian bee studies, but forgo opportunity to provide a balanced assessment relative merits different survey methods inform future studies (for constructive example this see Packer & Darla-West 2021). Instead, they single out standardised tools for bees (pan traps vane traps) as focus their criticism strongly advocate sweep netting direct observation by skilled entomologists ‘pre-eminen[t]’ surveys. They consistently criticise published work small number authors (particularly ourselves) claim that any results from pan trap samples lead ‘incorrect conclusions’ about biodiversity. We have concerns regarding biased perspective article, well numerous scientific errors misrepresentations work, including our own. The article contains examples poor scholarship cast doubt validity claims. highlight some those here use italics identify quotes (2021). argue data collected with leads ‘erroneous interpretations’. cite only (Lentini et al. 2012; Saunders 2013; Hall 2019; Brown 2020; Neave al 2020) could conclusion ‘replacing native vegetation exotic flora or agricultural fields would enhance species richness abundance bees’. In doing so, are wilfully misrepresenting cherry-picking specific elements presenting them context. fact, (2019) Lentini (2012) both explicitly importance retaining trees other in order conserve bees, (2013) show diversity was highest compared nearby agriculture. By analogy (and apologies Herring 2019!), perhaps showing endangered Australasian Bittern breeds rice crops should be kept quiet, case, it gets taken suggesting we replace natural wetlands expanded fields? No reasonable ecologist reading (ours, 2019) interpret finding manner, purposefully exaggerated appear fearful pessimistic perceptions role applied ecological research landscapes. Whereas suggest used support an anti-conservation agenda, instead motivated better understand these systems so can improve conservation outcomes large proportion biodiversity exists outside protected areas. also believe carefully analysed presented interpreted unbiased not structured around pre-conceived narrative. While seeking invalidate scientists, themselves blind weaknesses expose lack understanding methods. targeted observations ahead all certainly useful addressing questions, appropriate because suffer biases neglect discuss. Netting oversample larger more visible undersample fast-moving (Packer Unlike traps, net spatially limited area netter reach Because logistically intensive, come at cost sample size replication. Despite having decades global draw on, choose repeatedly study own (Prendergast evidence argument superior traps. However, question involved being seven urban bushland sites, within city, season, using several trapping (including netting). Both unique setting, fact is non-replicable method 2021), warrant strong caution attempts generalise set endorse surveys globally, contexts. There issues study’s analysis, which doubts its suitability supporting Hogendoorn’s claims: It basic principle rigorous must sampling taxa interest, system questions. whether trapping, netting. When choosing method, researchers need weigh up goals costs effort, available funds, logistics taxonomic knowledge expertise. approaches implemented achieve (e.g. taxonomy vs. assessment). passive (i.e. preferable latter type, easily than agree most insect ecologists multiple ideal general (as discussed Luck 2018). practices will allow consistent comparison between welcome dialogue protocols good effect considerations highlighted above, there times when appropriate, where still thoughtfully. Dismissing ‘questionable’ likely cause interpretations’ attacking fellow scientists basis collection alone rather overall design analysis does disservice discourse. no conflicts interest declare. Manu E. Saunders: Conceptualization (equal); Writing-original draft (equal). Mark Hall: Pia Lentini: Julian Brown: Saul A Cunningham: