Bee monitoring by community scientists: comparing a collections-based program with iNaturalist.

Bee monitoring, or widespread efforts to document bee community biodiversity, can involve data collection using lethal (specimen collections) or non-lethal methods (observations, photographs). Additionally, data can be collected by professional scientists or by volunteer participants from the general public. Collection-based methods presumably produce more reliable data with fewer biases against certain taxa, while photography-based approaches, such as data collected from public natural history platforms like iNaturalist, can involve more people and cover a broader geographic area. Few efforts have been made to quantify the pros and cons of these different approaches. We established a community science monitoring program to assess bee biodiversity across the state of Pennsylvania (USA) using specimen collections with nets, blue vane traps, and bowl traps. We recruited 26 participants, mostly Master Gardeners, from across the state to sample bees after receiving extensive training on bee monitoring topics and methods. The specimens they collected were identified to species, stored in museum collections, and the data added to public databases. Then, we compared the results from our collections to research-grade observations from iNaturalist during the same time period (2021 and 2022). At state and county levels, we found collections data documented over twice as much biodiversity and novel baseline natural history data (state and county records) than data from iNaturalist. iNaturalist data showed strong biases toward large-bodied and non-native species. This study demonstrates the value of highly trained community scientists for collections-based research that aims to document patterns of bee biodiversity over space and time.

Integrated Management of Sclerotinia Blight in Peanut: Utilizing Canopy Morphology, Mechanical Pruning, and Fungicide Timing.

Sclerotinia blight of peanut, caused by Sclerotinia minor, generally becomes severe only after vines meet in the row middles and a dense canopy develops. Dense foliage appears to support a microclimate conducive to the colonization of peanut limbs by S. minor. Removal of excess foliage before and during a Sclerotinia blight epidemic on the susceptible genotype NC 7 has been shown to reduce the rate of disease progress. Field tests in 1993 and 1994 examined control of Sclerotinia blight among four peanut genotypes (NC 7, VA 93B, NC Ac 18016, and Tam-span 90) with diverse canopy morphologies. Each cultivar had foliage pruned with a rotary mower once (1993 and 1994) or twice (1994) during the season. Applications of fluazinam (9.2 kg a.i./ha) were imposed on the genotype × pruning treatments. Soil temperatures under the canopy of each genotype and pruning treatment were measured and compared. Disease data were collected weekly by counting the number of feet of plants exhibiting lesions with visible fungus growth. Tamspan 90, a resistant Spanish peanut, had the least Sclerotinia blight incidence. Pruning measurably affected soil temperature for approximately 2 weeks following pruning. Removal of foliage reduced disease and increased disease control affected by fluazi-nam in fields with high disease pressure. In some tests, yields were increased by pruning through a reduction in disease pressure. Yields were lower when peanuts were pruned excessively, especially late in the season. Pruning of excessive vine growth can be an alternative, or complement, to fungicide treatments when done in midseason during favorable weather when moderate to high disease pressure occurs.