Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-m6dg7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T13:48:15.418Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Assessing capture techniques for ground beetles

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 April 2012

Andrea Dávalos  and
Bernd Blossey
Andrea Dávalos*
Affiliation:
Department of Natural Resources, Fernow Hall, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York 14853, United States of America
Bernd Blossey
Affiliation:
Department of Natural Resources, Fernow Hall, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York 14853, United States of America
*
1Corresponding author (e-mail: amd48@cornell.edu).
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We investigated the use of wooden boards to sample ground beetles (Coleoptera: Carabidae) and compared their efficacy with that of single pitfall traps and two modified pitfall traps (barrier and grouped traps). Carabid captures and species richness were similar between wooden boards and single pitfall traps, but higher in barrier and grouped traps. Although captures were higher in the modified pitfall traps, no method was consistently superior or capable of capturing all carabid species recorded at our study site. A distinct advantage of wooden boards is their ease of installation and maintenance and the fact that they can be left in remote areas for extended periods of time, eliminating the need to visit areas to open traps (if livetrapping is the desired outcome). These time savings and reduced site disturbance may make wooden boards an alternative to single pitfall traps.

Résumé

Nous avons évalué l'utilisation de planchettes pour l'échantillonnage des carabes (Coleoptera: Carabidae) et comparé leur efficacité à celle des pièges à fosse simples et de deux modifications de pièges à fosse doubles (piège avec barrière et pièges regroupés). Les captures de carabes et la richesse en espèces sont semblables avec les planchettes et les pièges à fosse simples, mais plus faibles qu'avec les pièges regroupés ou les pièges avec barrière. Bien que les captures soient plus importantes dans les pièges à fosse modifiés, aucune méthode ne s'avère constamment supérieure, ni capable de recueillir toutes les espèces de carabes signalées à notre site d'étude. La facilité d'installation et d'entretien des planchettes constituent des avantages certains; on peut aussi laisser les planchettes dans des sites éloignés pendant de longues périodes, ce qui élimine la nécessité de visiter à répétition ces sites pour relever les pièges, si l'on cherche à capturer des animaux vivants. Le temps sauvé et la réduction des perturbation dans les sites peuvent faire des planchettes une méthode de remplacement des pièges à fosse simples.

[Traduit par la Rédaction]

Type
Articles
Information
The Canadian Entomologist , Volume 138 , Issue 1: Adaptations and Constraints: a Symposium in Honour of Richard Ring / Adaptations et contraintes : un symposium en l'honneur de Richard Ring , February 2006 , pp. 118 - 122
Copyright
Copyright © Entomological Society of Canada 2006

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Arneberg, P., and Andersen, J. 2003. The energetic equivalence rule rejected because of a potentially common sampling error: evidence from carabid beetles. Oikos, 101: 367–375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Durkis, T.J., and Reeves, R.M. 1982. Barriers increase efficiency of pitfall traps. Entomological News, 93: 8–12.Google Scholar
Koivula, M., Kotze, D.J., and Hiisivuori, L. 2003. Pitfall trap efficiency: do trap size, collecting fluid and vegetation structure matter? Entomologica Fennica, 14: 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Larochelle, A., and Larivière, M.C. 2003. A natural history of the ground-beetles (Coleoptera: Carabidae) of America north of Mexico. Pensoft Publishers, Sofia, Bulgaria.Google Scholar
Lindroth, C.H. 1961. The ground beetles (Carabidae, excl. Cicindelinae) of Canada and Alaska. Opuscula Entomologica Supplementum, 20: 1–200.Google Scholar
Lindroth, C.H. 1963. The ground beetles (Carabidae, excl. Cicindelinae) of Canada and Alaska. Opuscula Entomologica Supplementum, 24: 201–408.Google Scholar
Lindroth, C.H. 1966. The ground beetles (Carabidae, excl. Cicindelinae) of Canada and Alaska. Opuscula Entomologica Supplementum, 29: 409–648.Google Scholar
Lindroth, C.H. 1968. The ground beetles (Carabidae, excl. Cicindelinae) of Canada and Alaska. Opuscula Entomologica Supplementum, 33: 649–944.Google Scholar
Lindroth, C.H. 1969 a. The ground beetles (Carabidae, excl. Cicindelinae) of Canada and Alaska. Opuscula Entomologica Supplementum, 34: 945–1192.Google Scholar
Lindroth, C.H. 1969 b. The ground beetles (Carabidae, excl. Cicindelinae) of Canada and Alaska. Opuscula Entomologica Supplementum, 35: i–xlviii.Google Scholar
Lövei, G.L., and Sunderland, K.D. 1996. Ecology and behavior of ground beetles (Coleoptera: Carabidae). Annual Review of Entomology, 41: 231–256.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Luff, M.L. 1975. Some features influencing the efficiency of pitfall traps. Oecologia, 19: 345–357.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rainio, J., and Niemelä, J. 2003. Ground beetles (Coleoptera: Carabidae) as bioindicators. Biodiversity and Conservation, 12: 487–506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar