Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-c4f8m Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-18T05:10:04.678Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Ground beetle (Coleoptera: Carabidae) inventories: a comparison of light and pitfall trapping

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 November 2007

Y. Liu ,
J.C. Axmacher ,
L. Li ,
C. Wang  and
Z. Yu
Y. Liu
Affiliation:
College of Agricultural Resources and Environmental Sciences, China Agricultural University, Beijing 100094, China
J.C. Axmacher
Affiliation:
Department of Geography, University College London, Pearson Building, Gower Street, London, WC1E 6BT, UK
L. Li
Affiliation:
College of Agricultural Resources and Environmental Sciences, China Agricultural University, Beijing 100094, China
C. Wang
Affiliation:
College of Agricultural Resources and Environmental Sciences, China Agricultural University, Beijing 100094, China
Z. Yu*
Affiliation:
College of Agricultural Resources and Environmental Sciences, China Agricultural University, Beijing 100094, China
*
*Author for correspondence Fax: +86 10 6273 2430 E-mail address: yuzhr@cau.edu.cn
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Carabid inventories gained via pitfall trapping were compared to manual samples from light towers. A comparison of the two methods indicated that pitfall traps recorded a significantly higher diversity of carabids and were efficient in indicating changes of habitat conditions. Nevertheless, this method failed to give near-complete inventories of all carabid species present. Manual sampling at light towers resulted in far greater sample sizes, and this method was particularly efficient in monitoring potential pest species, but again failed to record all species present. Both methods hence showed different strengths, and only a combination, potentially also including further sampling techniques, will enable the generation of complete species inventories.

Keywords

biodiversityCarabidaeinventorylight towerpitfall trap
Type
Research Article
Information
Bulletin of Entomological Research , Volume 97 , Issue 6 , December 2007 , pp. 577 - 583
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2007

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

Axmacher, J.C. & Fiedler, K. (2004) Manual versus automatic moth sampling at equal light sources – a comparison of catches from Mt. Kilimanjaro. Journal of the Lepidopterists' Society 58, 196–202.Google Scholar
Baars, M.A. (1979) Catches in pitfall traps in relation to mean densities of carabid beetles. Oecologia (Berl.) 41, 25–46.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Baker, R.R. & Sadovy, Y. (1978) The distance and nature of the light-trap response of moths. Nature 276, 818–820.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bergthaler, G.J. & Rėlys, V. (2002) Suction sampling in alpine habitats: experiences and suggestions pp. 291–297 in Toft, S. & Scharff, N. (Eds) European Arachnology 2000. Aarhus, Denmark, Aarhus University Press.Google Scholar
Briggs, J.B. (1961) A comparison of pitfall trapping and soil sampling in assessing populations of two species of ground beetles (Col.: Carabidae). Report of the East Malling Research Station 1960, 108–112.Google Scholar
Duelli, P. (1997) Biodiversity evaluation in agricultural landscapes: an approach at two different scales. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 62, 81–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duelli, P. & Obrist, M.K. (1998). In search of the best correlates for local organismal biodiversity in cultivated areas. Biodiversity Conservation 7, 297–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duelli, P. & Obrist, M.K. (2003) Biodiversity indicators: the choice of values and measures. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 98, 87–98.Google Scholar
Duelli, P., Obrist, M.K. & Schmatz, D.R. (1999) Biodiversity evaluation in agricultural landscapes: above-ground insects. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 74, 33–64.Google Scholar
Eyre, M.D. & Ruston, S.P. (1989). Quantification of conservation criteria using invertebrates. Journal of Applied Ecology 26, 159–171.Google Scholar
Gallagher, E.D. (1998) Compah96, URL (24.09.2004): www.es.umb.edu/faculty/edg/files/pub/COMPAH.EXE.Google Scholar
Gotelli, N. & Colwell, R.K. (2001) Quantifying biodiversity: Procedures and pitfalls in the measurement and comparison of species richness. Ecology Letters 4, 379–391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greenslade, P.J.M. (1964) Pitfall trapping as a method for studying populations of Carabidae (Coleoptera). Journal of Animal Ecology 33, 301–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greenslade, P. & Greenslade, P.J.M. (1971) The use of baits and preservatives in pitfall traps. Journal of the Australian Entomological Society 10, 253–260.Google Scholar
Gutiérrez, D., Menéndez, R. & Méndez, M. (2004) Habitat-based conservation priorities for carabid beetles within the Picos de Europa National Park, Northern Spain. Biological Conservation 115, 379–393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Handan Statistical Bureau (1998) Statistical Yearbook of Handan. 572 pp. Beijing, China Statistical Press.Google Scholar
Hayek, L.-A. & Buzas, M.A. (1997) Surveying Natural Populations. 563 pp. New York, Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Henderson, P.A. & Seaby, R.M.H. (2002) Species Diversity and Richness V3.0. Lymington, UK, Pisces Conservation Ltd.Google Scholar
Humphrey, J.W., Hawes, C., Peace, A.J., Ferris-Kaan, R. & Jukes, M.R. (1999) Relationships between insect diversity and habitat characteristics in plantation forests. Forest Ecology and Management 113, 11–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hurlbert, S.H. (1971) The nonconcept of species diversity: A critique and alternative parameters. Ecology 52, 577–586.Google Scholar
Kromp, B. (1999) Carabid beetles in sustainable agriculture: a review on pest control efficacy, cultivation impacts and enhancement. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 74, 187–228.Google Scholar
Lassau, S.A., Hochuli, D.F., Cassis, G. & Reid, C.A.M. (2005) Effects of habitat complexity on forest beetle diversity: do functional groups respond consistently? Diversity and Distributions 11, 73–82.Google Scholar
Lindroth, C.H. (1974). Handbooks for the identification of British insects. Royal Entomological Society of London, 4(2), 1–148.Google Scholar
Lövei, M.L. & Sunderland, K.D. (1996) Ecology and behavior of ground beetles (Coleoptera: ground beetleae). Annual Review of Entomology 41, 231–256.Google Scholar
Luff, M.L. (1975) Some features influencing the efficiency of pitfall traps. Oecologia (Berl.) 19, 345–357.Google Scholar
Luff, M.L. (1996) Environmental assessments using ground beetles carabidae and pitfall traps pp. 42–47in Eyre, M.D. (Ed.) Environmental Monitoring, Surveillance and Conservation Using Invertebrates. Newcastle upon Tyne, EMS Publications.Google Scholar
Magura, T., Tóthmérész, B. & Bordán, Z. (2000) Effects of nature management practice on carabid assemblages (Coleoptera: Carabidae) in a non-native plantation. Biological Conservation 93, 95–102.Google Scholar
Mitchell, B. (1963) Ecology of two carabid beetles, Bembidion lampros (Herbst) and Trechus quadristriatus (Schrank). II. Studies on populations of adults in the field, with special reference to the technique of pitfall trapping. Journal of Animal Ecology 32, 377–392.Google Scholar
Muirhead-Thomson, R.C. (1991) Trap Responses of Flying Insects. 287 pp. London, Academic Press.Google Scholar
Niemelä, J. (Ed.) (1996) Population Biology and Conservation of Carabid Beetles. Annales Zoologici Fennici 33, 1–241 (Special issue).Google Scholar
Niemelä, J., Halme, E. & Haila, Y. (1990) Balancing sampling effort in pitfall trapping of carabid beetles. Entomologica Fennica 1, 233–238.Google Scholar
Pekár, S. (2002) Differential effects of formaldehyde concentration and detergent on the catching efficiency of surface active artropods by pitfall traps. Pedobiologia 46, 539–547.Google Scholar
Rainio, J. & Niemelä, J. (2003) Ground beetles (Coleoptera; Carabidae) as biodiversity indicators. Biodiversity and Conservation 12, 487–506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Southwood, T.R.E. (1978) Ecological Methods. 524 pp. London, Chapman and Hall.Google Scholar
Spence, J.R. & Niemelä, J.K. (1994) Sampling carabid assemblages with pitfall traps: the madness and the method. Canadian Entomologist 126, 881–894.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Statsoft (2001) Statistica für Windows. Version 6.1. www.statsoft.com.Google Scholar
Thiele, H.U. (1977) Carabid Beetles in Their Environments – A Study on Habitat Selection by Adaptations in Physiology and Behavior. 369 pp. Berlin, Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
Trueblood, D.D., Gallagher, E.D. & Gould, D.M. (1994) The three stages of seasonal succession on the Savin Hill Cove mudflat, Boston Harbour. Limnology and Oceanography 39, 1440–1454.Google Scholar
Vanbergen, A.J., Woodcock, B.A., Watt, A.D. & Niemela, J. (2005) Effect of land-use heterogeneity on carabid communities at the landscape scale. Ecography 28, 3–16.Google Scholar
Ward, K.E. & Ward, R.N. (2001) Diversity and abundance of carabid beetles in short-rotation plantings of sweetgum, maize and switchgrass in Alabama. Agroforestry Systems 53, 261–267.Google Scholar