scholarly journals Peer Review #3 of "It’s a matter of design—how pitfall trap design affects trap samples and possible predictions (v0.1)"

2018 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Pitfall Trap ◽  
Trap Design

scholarly journals Responses of Red Flour Beetle Adults, Tribolium castaneum (Coleoptera: Tenebrionidae), and Other Stored Product Beetles to Different Pheromone Trap Designs

Insects ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 11 (11) ◽  
pp. 733
Author(s):  
Carl W. Doud ◽  
Thomas W. Phillips
Keyword(s):  
Tribolium Castaneum ◽  
Field Experiments ◽  
Pitfall Trap ◽  
Pheromone Trap ◽  
Sticky Trap ◽  
Red Flour Beetle ◽  
Blow Down ◽  
Trap Design ◽  
Baited Traps ◽  
Coleoptera Tenebrionidae

A series of laboratory and field experiments were performed to assess the responses of Tribolium castaneum (Herbst) and other stored-product beetles to pheromone-baited traps and trap components. A commercial Tribolium pitfall trap called the Flit-Trak M2, the predecessor to the Dome trap, was superior in both laboratory and field experiments over the other floor trap designs assessed at capturing walking T. castaneum. In field experiments, Typhaea stercorea (L.) and Ahasverus advena (Stephens) both preferred a sticky trap to the pitfall trap. Although the covered trap is effective at capturing several other species of stored product beetles, the synthetic Tribolium aggregation pheromone lure is critical for the pitfall trap’s efficacy for T. castaneum. Although the food-based trapping oil used in the pitfall trap was not found to be attractive to T. castaneum when assayed alone, it had value as an enhancer of the pheromone bait when the two were used together in the trap. A dust cover modification made to go over the pitfall trap was effective in protecting the trap from dust, although the trap was still vulnerable to dust contamination from sanitation techniques that used compressed air to blow down the mill floors. Capture of T. castaneum in the modified trap performed as well as the standard trap design in a non-dusty area of a flour mill, and was significantly superior over the standard trap in a dusty area. T. castaneum responded in flight outside a flourmill preferentially to multiple funnel traps with pheromone lures compared to traps without pheromone.

Optimized Pitfall Trap Design for Collecting Terrestrial Insects (Arthropoda: Insecta) in Biodiversity Studies

2018 ◽  
Vol 48 (1) ◽  
pp. 50-56
Author(s):  
V Costa-Silva ◽  
M D Grella ◽  
P J Thyssen
Keyword(s):  
Pitfall Trap ◽  
Trap Design ◽  
Terrestrial Insects

scholarly journals Which Pitfall Traps and Sampling Effort to Choose to Evaluate Cropping System Effects on Spider and Carabid Assemblages?

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Antoine Gardarin ◽  
Muriel Valantin-Morison
Keyword(s):  
Body Size ◽  
Habitat Management ◽  
Cropping Systems ◽  
Cropping System ◽  
Pitfall Trap ◽  
Sampling Effort ◽  
Pitfall Traps ◽  
Arthropod Communities ◽  
Trap Design ◽  
Activity Density

Abstract In arable agroecosystems, arthropod communities often have a reduced abundance and diversity, which represents a challenge for sampling techniques needed to detect small differences among these simplified communities. We evaluated the suitability of pitfall traps for comparing the effects of cropping systems on arthropod communities. In a field experiment, we compared the effects of two pitfall trap diameters, the type of preserving fluid and the sampling effort on three metrics (activity density, taxonomic richness, and community weighted mean [CWM] of body size) for carabids and spiders. Trap size affected the observed composition of communities, with large traps yielding a higher proportion of spiders, and a higher richness and CWM body size for both taxa. The type of preserving fluid had a weaker effect. Simulations with various sampling efforts showed that only very different communities could be distinguished with less than 10 traps per field or less than 30 field replicates. Fewer traps were required to find differences between cropping systems for body size than for other metrics. Carabid activity density and body size, and spider genus richness, were the variables better distinguishing between cropping systems with the smallest sampling effort. A high sampling effort was required for comparing activity density and richness across cropping systems. Selection of the most appropriate trap design, metrics, and crops are the main factors for optimizing the trade-off between sampling effort and the ability to detect arthropod community responses to habitat management.

Optimising design and effort for environmental surveys using dung beetles (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae)

2016 ◽  
Vol 149 (2) ◽  
pp. 214-226 ◽  
Author(s):  
Claudia Tocco ◽  
Danielle E.A. Quinn ◽  
John M. Midgley ◽  
Martin H. Villet
Keyword(s):  
Sampling Method ◽  
Ground Level ◽  
Dung Beetle ◽  
Pitfall Trap ◽  
Dung Beetles ◽  
Sampling Effort ◽  
Eastern Cape ◽  
Trap Design ◽  
Sampling Protocols ◽  
By Catch

AbstractIn biological monitoring, deploying an effective standardised quantitative sampling method, optimised by trap design and sampling effort, is an essential consideration. To exemplify this using dung beetle (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae: Scarabaeinae and Aphodiinae) communities, three pitfall trap designs (un-baited (TN), baited at ground level (flat trap, TF), and baited above the trap (hanging trap, TH)), employed with varying levels of sampling effort (number of traps=1, 2, 3 … 10; number of days=1, 2, 3), were evaluated for sampling completeness and efficiency in the Eastern Cape, South Africa. Modelling and resampling simulation approaches were used to suggest optimal sampling protocols across environmentally diverse sites. Overall, TF recovered the greatest abundance and species richness of dung beetles, but behavioural guilds showed conflicting trends: endocoprids preferred TH while paracoprids and telocoprids preferred TF. Resampling simulation of trap type and the two components of sampling effort suggested that six TF traps left for three days was most efficient in obtaining a representative sample and allowed differentiation between trap types, allowing the improved efficiency to be recognised. The effect of trap type on non-target specimens, particularly ants, was also investigated. TF and TH caught almost no by-catch, which is ethically desirable.

Pitfall trap designs to maximize invertebrate captures and minimize captures of nontarget vertebrates

2005 ◽  
Vol 137 (2) ◽  
pp. 233-250 ◽  
Author(s):  
J.L. Pearce ◽  
D. Schuurman ◽  
K.N. Barber ◽  
M. Larrivée ◽  
L.A. Venier ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Small Mammal ◽  
Pitfall Trap ◽  
Carabid Beetle ◽  
Carabid Beetles ◽  
Pitfall Traps ◽  
Shallow Trap ◽  
Trap Design ◽  
Mesh Screen ◽  
Funnel Trap ◽  
Incidental Catch

AbstractPitfall traps containing a preservative have become the standard method of sampling for epigeal invertebrates such as carabid beetles and cursorial spiders. However, they often result in high levels of mortality for small mammals and amphibians. We compared the carabid, spider, and vertebrate captures within five pitfall trap types (conventional trap, funnel trap, shallow trap, Nordlander trap, and the ramp trap) to determine the trap type that would reduce vertebrate incidental catch without compromising the capture of invertebrates. We also examined the effect of a mesh screen over pitfall traps on carabid beetle and vertebrate catches. All modifications to the conventional trap design resulted in a reduction in both small mammal and amphibian captures. The shallow pitfall trap and the funnel trap captured a carabid beetle and spider fauna similar to that captured by the conventional trap. The species compositions of the ramp trap and the Nordlander trap were different from those of the other trap types, but these traps were more efficient, capturing more species per individual captured. The ramp trap appeared to be the method of choice for sampling epigeal spiders. Thus, the choice among trap designs for invertebrates depends on the objectives of the study. However, an alternative to the conventional trap design should always be considered to reduce small mammal mortality.

scholarly journals It’s a matter of design—how pitfall trap design affects trap samples and possible predictions

PeerJ ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 6 ◽  
pp. e5078 ◽  
Author(s):  
Fabian A. Boetzl ◽  
Elena Ries ◽  
Gudrun Schneider ◽  
Jochen Krauss
Keyword(s):  
Type A ◽  
Pitfall Trap ◽  
Simple Type ◽  
Pitfall Traps ◽  
Small Species ◽  
Arthropod Communities ◽  
Trap Design ◽  
Biodiversity Inventories

Background Pitfall traps are commonly used to assess ground dwelling arthropod communities. The effects of different pitfall trap designs on the trapping outcome are poorly investigated however they might affect conclusions drawn from pitfall trap data greatly. Methods We tested four pitfall trap types which have been used in previous studies for their effectiveness: a simple type, a faster exchangeable type with an extended plastic rim plate and two types with guidance barriers (V- and X-shaped). About 20 traps were active for 10 weeks and emptied biweekly resulting in 100 trap samples. Results Pitfall traps with guidance barriers were up to five times more effective than simple pitfall traps and trap samples resulted in more similar assemblage approximations. Pitfall traps with extended plastic rim plates did not only perform poorly but also resulted in distinct carabid assemblages with less individuals of small species and a larger variation. Discussion Due to the obvious trait filtering and resulting altered assemblages, we suggest not to use pitfall traps with extended plastic rim plates. In comprehensive biodiversity inventories, a smaller number of pitfall traps with guidance barriers and a larger number of spatial replicates is of advantage, while due to comparability reasons, the use of simple pitfall traps will be recommended in most other cases.

scholarly journals Pitfall trap design affects the capture efficiency of harvestmen (Opiliones) and millipedes (Diplopoda)

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Slavomír Stašiov ◽  
Marek Čiliak ◽  
Michal Wiezik ◽  
Marek Svitok ◽  
Adela Wieziková ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Pitfall Trap ◽  
Capture Efficiency ◽  
Trap Design
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document