This is the authors' abstract. We don't add key points for this paper.
A common method in bumblebee monitoring is the capturing and immobilisation of animals to morphologically determine their species. This usually requires researchers to kill the specimens to examine small details under an optics setup. To circumvent this, molecular methods like cytochrome oxidase subunit I–based barcoding have been well established, which support monitoring efforts without the need to keep voucher specimens. The most common way of sampling tissue from living bumblebees for DNA barcoding remains the clipping of tarsal tips. However, the possible effects of this sampling method on the specimens, especially reproductives, have not been studied in detail. Here, we tested a minimally invasive sampling method for barcode‐based species identification, using hair from living as well as collection‐derived specimens. Our study consists of three different experimental parts, which aimed at adapting the method from controlled experimental to field conditions. Our results indicate that hair‐based barcoding of bumblebees is possible. In a controlled experiment, there were no negative effects on the survival of sampled individuals. However, sample processing must be handled more carefully than traditional tarsal sampling to avoid sample contamination. Nevertheless, hair is a promising sampling material for supporting difficult identifications in bumblebee monitoring. Our study is an example of establishing minimally invasive sampling methods for hairy pollinators. The method might be used to reduce the number of specimens killed in monitoring campaigns and to avoid damaging precious museum specimens.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Rongstock et al. (2024) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: