Insects in Flight

Young, Mark

doi:10.1002/9780470750513.ch6

Cited by 21 publications

(21 citation statements)

References 73 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…There are a number of trap designs, which typically use one of three types of light: standard filament bulbs, mercury vapour (MV) bulbs, and fluorescent actinic tubes (Fry & Waring, ). Such automated light trapping is hence a passive sampling method, and it generally outperforms – but not during bright nights at higher latitudes (Pettersson & Franzén, ) – other moth sampling methods (such as sugaring and larval surveys), both in terms of numbers of individuals and species caught, and economy of effort (Young, ; Waring & Townsend, ). Although hand sampling at light may lead to larger samples (Axmacher & Fiedler, ; Beck & Linsenmair, ), the typically high work load restricts simultaneous sampling at several sites.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 97%

“…Given the numerous ecosystem services provided by the typically highly abundant and ecologically diverse group of macro‐moths (e.g. nutrient cycling, pollination: see references in Fox, ), and their ease of sampling using light traps (Young, ), the establishment of an integrated global monitoring programme to accurately detect and quantify changes in nocturnal macro‐moth communities, within a global biodiversity monitoring framework is highly desirable. Such a programme would be complementary to suggested standardised global sampling programmes for other ecologically important groups, such as butterflies (Basset et al ., ), dung beetles (Larsen & Forsyth, ), and bees (Lebuhn et al ., ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Macro‐moth families differ in their attraction to light: implications for light‐trap monitoring programmes

Merckx

Slade

2014

Insect Conserv Diversity

114

103

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Light traps are used to make inferences about local macro‐moth communities, but very little is known about the efficiency with which they attract moths from varying distances, and how this may differ among families. We released 731 marked individuals, from three of the most common and species‐rich macro‐moth families, at several distances from low‐wattage actinic light traps in open and woodland habitat. Logistic regression showed family‐specific sampling areas: erebids were attracted from up to 27 m, geometrids from up to 23 m, and noctuids from up to 10 m from the light source, with these distances corresponding to a 5% recapture rate. Sampling size was also family‐specific: a maximum of 55% of erebids, 15% of geometrids, and 10% of noctuids were predicted to be trapped when flying near (0–1 m) light traps. Our study demonstrates that weak light traps: (i) have remarkably local sampling ranges, resulting in samples that are highly representative of the local habitat, and (ii) attract small, and family‐specific proportions of individuals within these ranges. We suggest that the local sampling ranges of weak light traps make them excellent tools to monitor nocturnal macro‐moth communities. As trap efficiency differs among macro‐moth families, care must be taken in relating the abundance of the sample to absolute local abundance. Frequent sampling can provide adequate data on relative temporal change in the local macro‐moth fauna, however.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 97%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Macro‐moth families differ in their attraction to light: implications for light‐trap monitoring programmes

Merckx

Slade

2014

Insect Conserv Diversity

114

103

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…We placed hanging sticky traps 10 m apart along transects spaced throughout the field site using the same height quartiles listed above, alternating traps in height. Traps were constructed using a piece of white (so as to not bias catch with a likely attractant color; Young ) piece of cardstock (21 × 14 cm) covered in Duck brand All Weather Repair Tape to waterproof. Tanglefoot ® insect plaque was applied at a depth of 2 mm to one side of the cardstock.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparing four simple, inexpensive methods for sampling forest arthropod communities

Kent

Peele

2019

J. Field Ornithol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Terrestrial arthropods are diverse, and quantifying their availability to consumers is important for understanding both consumer and insect distribution, abundance, and communities. However, characterizing arthropod communities in complex forest ecosystems is challenging. We compared arthropod communities in a wet‐limestone forest in Jamaica during the dry season sampled by four methods: branch clips, sweep netting, and sticky traps applied to tree trunks and hanging free of vegetation. We found no effect of relative height in the canopy for the two methods that could be used at different heights, i.e., hanging sticky traps and branch clips. In addition, the arthropod community sampled changed over time (season) for sweep nets and branch clips. We also found that branch clips and sweep nets sampled more arthropod taxa than the two sticky‐trap methods. In addition, branch clips and sweep nets sampled more ants and spiders than the two sticky‐trap methods, whereas collar sticky traps on tree trunks sampled more bark lice (Psocoptera), and hanging sticky traps more flies (Diptera) than the other methods. Percentages of flying insects and strong‐flying insects sampled did not differ between sweep netting and branch clipping, but a higher percentage of both groups were captured with collar and hanging sticky traps. Because we found that the different methods sampled different subsets of the arthropod community, both taxonomically and in terms of aerial versus non‐aerial taxa, investigators should choose the arthropod sampling methods that most closely align with their focal species and study questions. For example, investigators might use collar traps for studies of bark gleaners, hanging sticky traps for aerial foragers, and branch clips or sweep nets for foliage gleaners. Alternatively, if a focal species is known to prefer certain prey items, investigators may instead select a method that effectively samples those prey taxa. Finally, for some studies, using multiple sampling methods may be the best option.

show abstract

“…Sampling sessions were conducted approximately every 4 weeks (Session 1: 25–29 May; Session 2: 28 June 28 to 2 July; Session 3: 26–30 July; Session 4: 24 August 24 to 2 September 2011) to analyze the effects of seasonality. Because the sampling efficiency of blacklight trapping is known to be affected by weather and ambient moonlight, optimal conditions restricted trapping to nights of low moonlight intensity (half to new moon phases), no precipitation, wind speeds below 12 km/h, and a minimum temperature ≥ 17 °C (Yela & Holyoak, ; Young, ). We divided trapping between two nights per sampling cycle to minimize travel time between sites; the number of sites sampled per night (9/6, 8/7) changed over the course of the study as needed to account for destroyed stands, manipulated traps and other conditional events.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Lepidoptera-specific insecticide used to suppress gypsy moth outbreaks may benefit non-target forest Lepidoptera

Manderino¹,

Crist

Haynes³

2014

Agr Forest Entomol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

1 Despite considerable interest in the impacts of forest-defoliating insects and pesticide-based suppression of defoliator outbreaks on non-target arthropods, studies have often been hampered by the unpredictability of outbreaks. 2 We evaluated the long-term impacts of forest defoliation by gypsy moths, and the suppression of their outbreaks with Bacillus thuringiensis var. kurstaki (Btk), on native moths. Three years after a gypsy moth outbreak, moth diversity and abundance were compared among sites that were defoliated but not sprayed with Btk (defoliated sites), defoliated and sprayed (Btk sites) or neither (undisturbed sites). We conducted separate evaluations of the effects of disturbance history on the overall moth community, taxonomic subgroups (families) and moths differing in their dietary overlap with gypsy moths. 3 Analyses of the full moth community revealed no effects of disturbance history on local ( ) moth diversity or diversity of moths among sites ( -diversity). The -or -diversities of moths classified by their dietary overlap with gypsy moths (overlapping, partially overlapping, not overlapping) were also not affected by disturbance history. However, taxonomic affiliation was important. Geometridae -diversity in late summer was significantly lower in defoliated sites than in Btk or undisturbed sites. No effects of disturbance history on moth abundances were found. 4 We conclude gypsy moth defoliation had negative effects on a major moth family (Geometridae), although Btk application may have protected Geometridae from the adverse effects of gypsy moth defoliation. The results of the present study help to clarify the relative, and sometimes countervailing, effects of defoliators and microbial pesticides on forest communities.

show abstract

Insects in Flight

Cited by 21 publications

References 73 publications

Macro‐moth families differ in their attraction to light: implications for light‐trap monitoring programmes

Macro‐moth families differ in their attraction to light: implications for light‐trap monitoring programmes

Comparing four simple, inexpensive methods for sampling forest arthropod communities

Lepidoptera-specific insecticide used to suppress gypsy moth outbreaks may benefit non-target forest Lepidoptera

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About