Sampling Methods for Forest Understory Vegetation

Ozanne, Claire

doi:10.1002/9780470750513.ch4

Cited by 29 publications

(24 citation statements)

References 38 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…It has been suggested, that to obtain a representative sample of a local beetle community several collecting methods should be used simultaneously (Økland, 1996;Muona, 1999;Ozanne, 2005) and the result can be improved by placing the traps on different types of substrate, e.g. on different types of dead wood (Martikainen & Kouki, 2003).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Hyvärinen¹,

Kouki²,

Martikainen³

2006

Eur. J. Entomol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Sampling of insect communities is very challenging and for reliable interpretation of results the effects of different sampling 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 individuals, 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.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Hyvärinen¹,

Kouki²,

Martikainen³

2006

Eur. J. Entomol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The combination of different sampling techniques is usually required to increase the probability of catching a higher number of saproxylic species in relation to their ecological niches (Alinvi et al, 2007;Hyvärinen et al, 2006;Janssen et al, 2011;Martikainen and Kouki, 2003;Ozanne, 2005;Ranius and Jansson, 2002). The two intercept flight traps with crossing panels (TCWFT and BCWFT) recorded the same number of species and an identical species composition, showing that the panel colour does not affect the catch.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A combination of sampling methods is usually required to obtain a comprehensive information on saproxylic communities (Alinvi et al, 2007;Bouget et al, 2008;Martikainen and Kouki, 2003;Ozanne, 2005).…”

Section: Beetle Trappingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Saproxylic beetles in three relict beech forests of central Italy: Analysis of environmental parameters and implications for forest management

Zan

Bellotti

D'amato

et al. 2014

Forest Ecology and Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Malaise traps were used to catch mainly Diptera, actively flying through the forest understory (Ausden and Drake, 1997;Ozanne, 2005).These kind of traps have widely been used in surveys of insect abundance and diversity (Campbell and Hanula, 2007), usually because they collect vast numbers of insects, giving an excellent return for effort than any other single trap (Ausden and Drake, 1997). Window traps were used to collect flying beetles (Ausden and Drake, 1997), associated with specific understory resources, such as dead wood (Ozanne, 2005). These traps are known to respond to the immediate surroundings of the trap location (Sverdrup-Thygeson and Birkemoe, 2009), and thus are particularly suitable for monitoring and comparing forest habitats (Alinvi et al, 2007).…”

Section: Methods Used For Measuring the Indicatorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

From the experience of LIFE+ ManFor C.BD to the Manual of Best Practices in Sustainable Forest Management

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Italian Journal of Agronomy (IJA) is the official journal of the Italian Society of Agronomy for the publication of original research papers reporting experimental and theoretical contributions to agronomy and crop science. Typical subjects covered by the IJA include: i) crop physiology, ii) crop production and management, iii) agroclimatology and modelling, iv) plant-soil relationships, v) crop quality and post-harvest physiology, vi) farming and cropping systems, vii) agroecosystems and the environment, viii) agricultural ecology, ix) advances in traditional and innovative crops, x) crop and system modelling. Instructions to AuthorsManuscripts must be submitted online at www.agronomy.it only; do not submit via e-mail or surface mail.Manuscripts must be written in English. Authors whose native language is not English are strongly recommended to have their manuscript checked by a language editing service, or by an English mother-tongue colleague prior to submission. Manuscripts should be saved and submitted as a single WORD file containing the full text, references, tables and figures. In case of acceptance, original text and figures must be provided for publication.Original Articles should normally be divided into an abstract, introduction, materials and methods, results, discussion and references. The abstract should contain a maximum of 400 words. A maximum of 20 authors is permitted, and additional authors should be listed in an ad hoc appendix. Review Articles: no particular format is required for these articles. However, they should have an informative, unstructured abstract of about 250 words. Reviews may also include meta-analyses, guidelines and consensus papers by scientific societies or working groups. These studies must be conducted following proper, widely accepted ad hoc procedures. Short Communications are articles with a simple layout and containing limited data (no more than two figures or tables) and a small number of citations (not more than 25). They should be limited to 2,000 words of text (figure captions, table headings and reference lists are additional to this limit). Letters to the editor should be from 250 to 1,000 words in length. Authors of letters to the editor should provide a short title for their letter.Manuscripts should be double spaced with numbered lines and wide margins and should be arranged as follows. Title page: including the full title, the name(s) of the author(s), their affiliation and the name of the corresponding author to whom proofs and requests for off-prints should be sent. Abstract: should not exceed 400 words. Keywords: three to six keywords characterizing the content of the article in alphabetical order. Introduction: a brief introduction. Materials and methods: this section should provide sufficient information and references on the techniques adopted to permit their replication. Results: the content of this section should permit full comprehension of the data reported in figures and tables. Discussion: this should underline the significance of the resul...

show abstract

Sampling Methods for Forest Understory Vegetation

Cited by 29 publications

References 38 publications

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

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

Saproxylic beetles in three relict beech forests of central Italy: Analysis of environmental parameters and implications for forest management

From the experience of LIFE+ ManFor C.BD to the Manual of Best Practices in Sustainable Forest Management

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About