Many bee species are declining globally, but to detect trends and monitor bee assemblages, robust sampling methods are required. Numerous sampling methods are used, but a critical review of their relative effectiveness is lacking. Moreover, evidence suggests the relative effectiveness of sampling methods depends on habitat, yet efficacy in urban areas has yet to be evaluated. This study compared the bee community documented using observational records, targeted netting, mobile gardens, pan traps (blue and yellow), vane traps (blue and yellow), and trap‐nests. The comparative surveys of native bees and honeybees were undertaken in an urbanized region of the southwest Australian biodiversity hot spot. The outcomes of the study were then compared to a synthesis based on a comprehensive literature review of studies where two or more bee sampling methods were conducted. Observational records far exceeded all other methods in terms of abundance of bees recorded, but were unable to distinguish finer taxonomic levels. Of methods that captured individuals, thereby permitting taxonomic identification, targeted sweep netting vastly outperformed the passive sampling methods, yielding a total of 1324 individuals, representing 131 taxonomic units—even when deployed over a shorter duration. The relative effectiveness of each method differed according to taxon. From the analysis of the literature, there was high variability in relative effectiveness of methods, but targeted sweep netting and blue vane traps tended to be most effective, in accordance with results from this study. However, results from the present study differed from most previous studies in the extremely low catch rates in pan traps. Species using trap‐nests represented only a subset of all potential cavity‐nesters, and their relative abundances in the trap‐nests differed from those in the field. Mobile gardens were relatively ineffective at attracting bees. For urbanized habitat within this biodiversity hot spot, targeted sweep netting is indispensable for obtaining a comprehensive indication of native bee assemblages; passive sampling methods alone recorded only a small fraction of the native bee community. Overall, a combination of methods should be used for sampling bee communities, as each has their own biases, and certain taxa were well represented in some methods, but poorly represented in others.

中文翻译：

---

土蜂抽样方法的相对性能：一项经验检验和文献综述

全球有许多蜂种在减少，但是要检测趋势并监测蜂群，就需要可靠的采样方法。使用了许多采样方法，但是缺乏对其相对有效性的严格审查。此外，有证据表明采样方法的相对有效性取决于栖息地，但尚未评估城市地区的有效性。这项研究比较了使用观测记录，有针对性的网，移动式花园，盆形陷阱（蓝色和黄色），叶片陷阱（蓝色和黄色）和陷阱嵌套记录的蜂群。在澳大利亚西南部生物多样性热点的城市化地区对本地蜜蜂和蜜蜂进行了比较调查。然后将研究结果与基于对两种或多种蜜蜂采样方法进行的综合研究文献综述的综合结果进行比较。观测记录在记录蜜蜂数量方面远远超过了所有其他方法，但无法区分更精细的分类学水平。在捕获个体的方法（从而可以进行分类学识别）中，有针对性的扫网大大优于被动采样方法，即使在较短的时间内部署，也可以产生总共1324个个体，代表131个分类单元。每种方法的相对有效性根据分类单元而有所不同。根据文献分析，方法的相对有效性差异很大，但针对性的扫网和蓝色叶片陷阱往往是最有效的，根据这项研究的结果。但是，本研究的结果与大多数以前的研究不同之处在于锅陷阱的捕获率极低。使用陷阱巢的物种仅代表所有潜在腔巢的一个子集，并且它们在陷阱巢中的相对丰度与野外的有所不同。流动花园在吸引蜜蜂方面相对无效。对于这个生物多样性热点内的城市化栖息地而言，有针对性的扫网对于全面了解本地蜂群是必不可少的。仅被动采样方法仅记录了本地蜂社区的一小部分。总体而言，应使用多种方法对蜜蜂群落进行采样，因为每种方法都有其自身的偏见，某些分类单元在某些方法中代表良好，而在其他方法中代表不足。