A comparison of three trapping methods used to survey forest-dwelling Coleoptera

By E. Hyvärinen, J. Kouki, P. Martikainen. 2006

96 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Sampling of insect communities is very challenging and for reliable interpretation of results the effects of different sam- pling protocols and data processing on the results need to be fully understood. We compared three different commonly used methods for sampling forest beetles, freely hanging flight-intercept (window) traps (FWT), flight-intercept traps attached to trunks (TWT) and pitfall traps placed in the ground (PFT), in Scots pine dominated boreal forests in eastern Finland. Using altogether 960 traps, forming 576 sub-samples, at 24 study sites, 59760 beetles belonging to 814 species were collected over a period of a month. All of the material was identified to species, with the exception of a few species pairs, to obtain representative data for analyses. Four partly overlapping groups were used in the analyses: (1) all, (2) saproxylic, (3) rare and (4) red-listed species. In terms of the number of species collected TWTs were the most effective for all species groups and the rarer species the species group composed of (groups 1-2-3-4) the larger were the differences between the trap types. In particular, the TWTs caught most red-listed species. However, when sample sizes were standardized FWTs and TWTs caught similar number of species of all species groups. PFTs caught fewer species of all species groups, whether the sample sizes were standardized or not. In boreal forests they seem to be unsuitable for sampling saproxylic, rare and red-listed species. However, the PFTs clearly sampled different parts of species assemblages than the window traps and can be considered as a supplementary method. The abundance distribution of saproxylic species was truncated lognormal in TWT and pooled material, whereas unclassified material failed to reveal lognormal distribution in all the trap types and pooled material. The results show that even in boreal forests sample sizes of at least thousands, preferably tens of thousands of indi- viduals, collected by a high number of traps are needed for community level studies. Relevant ecological classification of material is also very important for reliable comparisons. Differences in the performance of trap types should be considered when designing a study, and in particular when evaluating the results.

Subfields: Ecology, Insect Science, Nature and Landscape Conservation

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/ba365a6614e730356591d46f2a4f2dbc6cf1c48e

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Ecology

In Insect Science

In Nature and Landscape Conservation

Citations in the corpus

What window traps can tell us: effect of placement, forest openness and beetle reproduction in retention trees (2009, unknown): “Even though the most efficient method for ensuring large samples in forest is the window trap (Hyvarinen et al. 2006), the limitations in the use of these traps have been focused by several authors lately (Jonsell and Weslien 2003; Martikainen and Kouki 2003; Ranius and Jansson 2002; Wikars et al.…”
Horizontal and vertical distribution of saproxylic beetles (Col., Buprestidae, Cerambycidae, Scolytinae) across sections of forest edges (2007, background): “This type of trap collects flying insects in a passive way (without attractants) and is widely used to compare different habitats (Økland 1996; Hyvärinen et al. 2006).”
Mimicking natural disturbances of boreal forests: the effects of controlled burning and creating dead wood on beetle diversity (2007, unknown): “The traps consisted of two crosswise-set transparent plastic panes with a funnel and container below them (for more details, see Hyvärinen et al. 2006).”
Landscape context affects the success of habitat restoration: large‐scale colonization patterns of saproxylic and fire‐associated species in boreal forests (2012, methodology): “This is substantiated by several studies that have documented such a pattern in our study region or in adjacent Russia (e.g. Siitonen & Martikainen, 1994; Kouki & Väänänen, 2000; Berglund & Jonsson, 2005; Hyvärinen et al., 2006b; Hottola & Siitonen, 2008; Laaksonen et al., 2008).”