Over the past few decades, several investigations around the globe have reported alarming declines in the abundance and diversity of bee species. The success of effective conservation strategies targeting these important pollinators relies heavily on accurate biodiversity assessments. The shortage of taxonomic experts and the escalation of the ongoing biodiversity crisis call for the development of alternative identification tools to implement efficient monitoring programs. The validation of such techniques is crucial to ensure that they provide results comparable to those of traditional morphotaxonomy. Here we performed two double-blind experiments to evaluate the accuracy of a pair of new techniques used for wild bee identification: DNA metabarcoding and in vivo identification in the field. The methods were tested on sets of wild bees from Germany and their results compared against evaluations done by panels of bee experts using traditional morphotaxonomy. On average the congruency of species identification between metabarcoding and morphotaxonomy was 88.98% across samples (N = 10), while in vivo identification and morphotaxonomy were 91.81% congruent (N = 7) for bees considered feasible for in vivo identification in the field. Traditional morphotaxonomy showed similar congruencies when compared to itself: 93.65% in the metabarcoding study and 92.96% in the in vivo study. Overall, these results support both new methods as viable alternatives to traditional microscopy-based assessment, with neither method being error-free. Metabarcoding provides a suitable option to analyze large numbers of specimens in the absence of highly trained taxonomic experts, while in vivo identification is recommended for repeated long-term monitoring, and when working in areas where the sampling of individuals could threaten local populations of endangered wild bee species. Further research is still needed to explore the potential of both techniques for conservation management and wildlife monitoring, as well as to overcome their current limitations as taxonomic tools.
