<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">....just put out on the Beemonitoring
listserv, but of relevance hear since as there are some policy folks not
present on the bee monitoring listserv...so apologies for cross-posting.</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">All:</font><font size=3> <br>
</font><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><br>
Gretchen LeBuhn, Ed Connor, and myself have been working this past year
on a survey design for North American Native Bees along with quite a number
of others (many thanks for all the data sharing). We have submitted
a paper to Science and managed to be part of the 97% of the papers submitted
to Science that are rejected and so will submit down the food chain until,
perhaps, we have to self-publish. In the meantime we have made a
presentation at the 2009 North American Pollinator Protection Campaign
meeting unveiling our strategy to wider scrutiny. </font><font size=3>
<br>
</font><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><br>
You can see that talk at:</font><font size=3> </font><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><br>
</font><font size=3 color=blue><u><br>
</u></font><a href="http://www.slideshare.net/sdroege/survey-design-for-monitoring-north-american-native-bees"><font size=2 color=blue face="sans-serif"><u>http://www.slideshare.net/sdroege/survey-design-for-monitoring-north-american-native-bees</u></font></a><font size=3>
<br>
</font><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><br>
Not a lot of detail is presented as we didn't want to scare people with
statistics, but if you like such things we would be happy to email you
a draft. You can reach me at sdroege@usgs.gov to do so.</font><font size=3>
<br>
</font><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><br>
We are now moving towards the negotiations table to start putting together
some funding.</font><font size=3> <br>
</font><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><br>
Below are some of the essential elements.</font><font size=3> <br>
</font><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><br>
1. A statistically reasonable program can be put together that will
capture 1-2% per year changes in bee populations over a 5 year window using
100 sampling sites.</font><font size=3> </font><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><br>
2. The sampling frame for those 100 sites is open to all sorts of
possibilities, but the answer (unless you want to define the goals, definitions,
and parameters differently) will always be 100.</font><font size=3> </font><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><br>
3. So, for example, we have proposed that the federal groups that
manage large amounts of public lands (USFS, USFWS, NPS, DOD, BLM, BuRec)
all could assess how their properties are doing using 100 surveys sites.
So, too could a state or the USDA could sample all orchards across
the U.S. ...and so forth.</font><font size=3> </font><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><br>
4. A survey location is simply a transect of 24 or 30 bowls (we haven't
decided, the Canadians are using 30, so we may go that way for comparability)
of 3 colors, spaced 50m apart and run on an appropriate day every 2 weeks
throughout the season. Each site would be run only 1 time every 5
years and the starting year for sites would be spaced across four years.</font><font size=3>
</font><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><br>
5. Specimens will be bagged and shipped to 2 proposed processing
centers.</font><font size=3> </font><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><br>
6. Costs per site will be low and overall costs will largely be that
of supporting a coordinator and technicians to process specimens. As
an example we estimated if 4 programs were created for 4 different management
or agricultural groups, using 200 sites each (we used 200 rather than 100
so we would have a better initial estimation of change), they would generate
170,000 specimens a year and in addition to the coordinator it would take
2 additional people (FTE's) to process that amount. (see </font><a href=http://www.pwrc.usgs.gov/BBS/><font size=2 color=blue face="sans-serif"><u>http://www.pwrc.usgs.gov/BBS/</u></font></a><font size=2 face="sans-serif">
for an example of a program, run by volunteers, that drives much of the
large scale conservation of birds).</font><font size=3> </font><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><br>
7. The beauty of this system, and any monitoring program, really;
is that it increases in statistical power with time. As the system
continues it become possible to track trends of many of the individual
species, look at regional patterns, split things by guilds, genera, etc.
<br>
8. Because everything is standardized all sorts of biogeographical and
ecological analyses are possible.</font><font size=3> <br>
</font><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><br>
Well, it looks like I will remain busy with all this for a few more years.......</font><font size=3>
<br>
</font><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><br>
sam</font><font size=3> </font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><br>
<br>
Sam Droege sdroege@usgs.gov
<br>
w 301-497-5840 h 301-390-7759 fax 301-497-5624<br>
USGS Patuxent Wildlife Research Center<br>
BARC-EAST, BLDG 308, RM 124 10300 Balt. Ave., Beltsville, MD 20705</font><font size=3 color=blue><u><br>
</u></font><a href=Http://www.pwrc.usgs.gov/><font size=2 color=blue face="sans-serif"><u>Http://www.pwrc.usgs.gov</u></font></a><font size=3>
<br>
</font><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><br>
"They've got this steamroller going, and they won't stop until there's
nobody fishing. What are they going to do then, save some bees?"<br>
Mike Russo</font><font size=3><br>
</font><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><br>
(Massachusetts fisherman who has fished cod for 18 years, on environmentalist)</font><font size=3>
</font><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><br>
</font><font size=5 color=#008000 face="Webdings">P</font><font size=2 color=#008000>
<b>Bees are not optional</b></font><font size=1 color=#008000><b>.</b></font>