Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-x24gv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-06T11:44:23.153Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effects of light-trap design and illumination of samples of moths in the Kenya highlands

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 July 2009

L. R. Taylor  and
E. S. Brown
L. R. Taylor
Affiliation:
Department of Entomology, Rothamsted Experimental Station, Harpenden, Herts, England
E. S. Brown
Affiliation:
Commonwealth Institute of Entomology, 56 Queen's Gate, London SW7 5JR
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The effect on the size of sample of 32 taxa of Macrolepidoptera, and on the index of diversity α, of various modifications of the light in Rothamsted and Muguga light-traps was investigated in experiments at Muguga, Kenya, in 1968. The sample of moths from the standard Muguga mercury-vapour trap was fifty times as big as that from the standard Rothamsted Tungsten trap. Using a mixed mercury-vapour and tungsten lamp in a Muguga trap halved the sample, as also would obscuring 60% of the light from a standard mercury-vapour lamp. Overall size of sample, direction of illumination and source of illumination all affected the proportion of different taxa in the sample, but the diversity index differed little in any of the combinations of traps, lamps and sites. Analysis of the pattern of sample distribution over the site showed that moths of all sizes were migrating downwind and height of flight was found to be positively correlated with size. Interaction between traps and sites, combined with the differing heights of flight of the different taxa, complicated the definition of specific sample size; a three-dimensional representational model attempts to define the spatial population parameters required to define the specific sample.

Type
Original Articles
Information
Bulletin of Entomological Research , Volume 62 , Issue 1 , July 1972 , pp. 91 - 112
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1972

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

Referecces

Brown, E. S. (1965). Armyworm Research.—E. Afr. Agric. For. Res. Org. 1964, 24–36.Google Scholar
Brown, E. S., Betts, E. & Rainey, R. C. (1969). Seasonal changes in distribution of the African armyworm, Spodoptera exempta (Wlk.) (Lep., Noctuidae), with special reference to eastern Africa.—Bull. ent. Res. 58, 661–728.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, E. S. & Taylor, L. R. (1971). Lunar cycles in the distribution and abundance of airborne insects in the equatorial highlands of East Africa.—J. Anim. Ecol. 40, 767–779.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fisher, R. A., Corbet, A. S. & Williams, C. B. (1943). The relation between the number of species and the number of individuals in a random sample of an animal population.—J. Anim. Ecol. 12, 42–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frost, S. W. (1952). Light traps for insect collection, survey and control.—Bull. Pa agr. Exp. Stn no. 550, 32 pp.Google Scholar
Hartstack, A. W. jr., Hollingsworth, J. P. & Lindquist, D. A. (1968). A technique for measuring trapping efficiency of electric insect traps.—J. econ. Ent. 61, 546–552.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hollingsworth, J. P., Briggs, C.P. III, Glick, P. A. & Graham, H. M. (1961). Some factors influencing light trap collections.—J. econ. Ent. 54, 305–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, C. G. (1957). The distribution of insects in the air and the empirical relation of density to height.—J. Anim. Ecol. 26, 479–494.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis, T. & Dibley, G. C. (1970). Air movement near windbreaks and a hypothesis of the mechanism of the accumulation of airborne insects.—Ann. appl. Biol. 66, 477–484.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robinson, H. S. & Robinson, P. J. M. (1950). Some notes on the observed behaviour of Lepidoptera in flight in the vicinity of light-sources together with a description of a light-trap designed to take entomological samples.—Entomologists' Gaz. 1, 3–15.Google Scholar
Taylor, L. R. (1960). The distribution of insects at low levels in the air.—J. Anim. Ecol. 29, 45–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taylor, L. R. (1962). The absolute efficiency of insect suction traps.—Ann. appl. Biol. 50, 405–421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taylor, L. R. (1968). The Rothamsted Insect Survey.—Nat. Sci. Sch. 6, 2–9.Google Scholar
Taylor, L. R. & French, R. A. (1970). Rothamsted Insect Survey.—Rep. Rothamsted exp. Stn 1969, Pt. 2, 168–185.Google Scholar
Williams, C. B. (1948). The Rothamsted light trap.—Proc. R. ent. Soc. Lond. (A) 23, 80–85.Google Scholar
Williams, C. B. (1951). Comparing the efficiency of insect traps.—Bull. ent. Res. 42, 513–517.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, C. B. (1961). Studies in the effect of weather conditions on the activity and abundance of insect populations.—Phil. Trans. R. Soc. (B) 244, 331–378.Google Scholar
Williams, C. B. (1964). Patterns in the balance of nature and related problems in quantitative ecology.—324 pp. London, Academic Press.Google Scholar
Williams, C. B., French, R. A. & Hosni, M. M. (1955). A second experiment on testing the relative efficiency of insect traps.—Bull. ent. Res. 46, 193–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar