Using Malaise traps for collecting Lepidoptera (Insecta), with notes on the preparation of Macrolepidoptera from ethanol

Schmidt, Olga; Schmidt, Stefan; Häuser, Christoph L.; Hausmann, Axel; Vu, Lien Van

doi:10.3897/bdj.7.e32192

Cited by 11 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 27 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Malaise trapping is only appropriate for monitoring flying insects (Figure 1). Many flies (Diptera) and some wasps, flying ants, bees (Hymenoptera), bugs (Hemiptera), moths (Lepidoptera), and semi-aquatic taxa are effectively sampled by malaise traps (Matthews and Matthews, 1970;Noyes, 1989;Campbell and Hanula, 2007;Fraser et al, 2008;Mazon and Bordera, 2008;Diserud et al, 2013;Schmidt et al, 2019). Within these groups, malaise trapping is especially appropriate for Tenthredinidae, Ichneumonoidea, Scelionidae, Mymaridae, and other hymenopterans with similar life histories, as well as Cicadellidae and Cercopidae (Hemiptera), microlepidopterans (Lepidoptera), and the semi-aquatic orders Plecoptera, Ephemeroptera, and Trichoptera-if traps are placed alongside aquatic habitats.…”

Section: Taxonomic Considerationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Standards and Best Practices for Monitoring and Benchmarking Insects

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Benchmark studies of insect populations are increasingly relevant and needed amid accelerating concern about insect trends in the Anthropocene. The growing recognition that insect populations may be in decline has given rise to a renewed call for insect population monitoring by scientists, and a desire from the broader public to participate in insect surveys. However, due to the immense diversity of insects and a vast assortment of data collection methods, there is a general lack of standardization in insect monitoring methods, such that a sudden and unplanned expansion of data collection may fail to meet its ecological potential or conservation needs without a coordinated focus on standards and best practices. To begin to address this problem, we provide simple guidelines for maximizing return on proven inventory methods that will provide insect benchmarking data suitable for a variety of ecological responses, including occurrence and distribution, phenology, abundance and biomass, and diversity and species composition. To track these responses, we present seven primary insect sampling methods—malaise trapping, light trapping, pan trapping, pitfall trappings, beating sheets, acoustic monitoring, and active visual surveys—and recommend standards while highlighting examples of model programs. For each method, we discuss key topics such as recommended spatial and temporal scales of sampling, important metadata to track, and degree of replication needed to produce rigorous estimates of ecological responses. We additionally suggest protocols for scalable insect monitoring, from backyards to national parks. Overall, we aim to compile a resource that can be used by diverse individuals and organizations seeking to initiate or improve insect monitoring programs in this era of rapid change.

show abstract

Section: Taxonomic Considerationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Standards and Best Practices for Monitoring and Benchmarking Insects

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In general, small-bodied or fragile individuals are also more apt to be detected in the preservative fluid because their bodies (or detached parts) may pass through the mesh of the filter during sample processing (Marquina et al, 2019). Comparing each community, we find that metabarcoding results of tissue DNA resulted in sample compositions that are coherent with typical catchings of Malaise traps: predominantly Diptera and Hymenoptera, followed by other orders in much lower abundances (Geiger et al, 2016;Gressitt & Gressitt, 1962;Karlsson et al, 2020;Matthews & Matthews, 2017;Moeed & Meads, 1987;Schmidt et al, 2019;Skvarla, 2015). In contrast, we recovered a strikingly high proportion of Lepidoptera when metabarcoding the ethanol-based DNA.…”

Section: Discrepant Arthropod Communitiesmentioning

confidence: 73%

Depicting environmental gradients from Malaise trap samples: Is ethanol‐basedDNAmetabarcoding enough?

Chimeno

Hübner

Seifert

et al. 2022

Insect Conserv Diversity

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

1. DNA metabarcoding is revolutionising biodiversity research, as it offers researchers a holistic taxonomic approach across lineages. Many studies are dedicated to testing its application and optimising workflows. One topic of discussion is the nature of samples used for sequencing and comparing taxonomic results.2. However, in ecological and environmental studies, where scientists always work with subsets of species, it may be less important whether different methods provide different subsets but more important if ecological and environmental information is conserved equally.3. Numerous studies have successfully applied destructive and non-destructive metabarcoding approaches to evaluate patterns in biodiversity and in this respect, we aim to determine for the very first time whether environmental information is also conserved in the preservative ethanol of terrestrial arthropod bulk samples. 4. To test this, we applied DNA metabarcoding on tissue DNA and on ethanol-based DNA of the same Malaise trap samples. The arthropod material was collected with eight traps located in three different habitats: forest, meadow, and riparian. 5. We identified more than 3000 operational taxonomic units and demonstrate that ethanol-based DNA sequencing did not provide information on ecological gradients, except for the case of seasonal patterns, which was well conserved for some taxa.6. The conserved seasonality is an interesting starting point for further investigations.Until future research has provided more successful results, we recommend researchers dealing with terrestrial ecosystems to be careful when using ethanol DNA.

show abstract

“…This is not surprising, as we: (1) processed samples that were only collected with Malaise traps; (2) processed specimens from only eight samples and (3) have obtained a comparatively low sequencing success. Malaise traps are one of the most effective methods for capturing flying insects ( Matthews and Matthews 2017 , Schmidt et al 2019 ), but as various research has shown, in tropical regions, the highest diversity is found in the canopy of trees ( Missa et al 2009 , Basset et al 2012 , Basset et al 2015 ). As this diversity is unattainable with Malaise traps, we take it for certain that incorporating more sampling techniques would have substantially recovered more specimens and, in turn, a higher species-richness.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…To achieve this, a total of 34 Malaise traps were set up at four localities of the Park in 2015 and 2016. Malaise traps are commonly used for sampling of terrestrial insects because they provide standardised sampling, are very effective at capturing flying insects and are easy to use ( Matthews and Matthews 2017 , Schmidt et al 2019 ). Previous taxon-specific data releases demonstrate the extreme species-richness of these and other sites that have been sampled in the framework of IndoBioSys (see Cancian de Araujo et al (2018a) , Cancian de Araujo et al (2018b) , Cancian de Araujo et al (2019) , Schmidt et al (2019) , Hilgert et al (2019) ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

DNA barcoding data release for the Phoridae (Insecta, Diptera) of the Halimun-Salak National Park (Java, Indonesia)

Chimeno¹,

Schmidt²,

Hamid³

et al. 2023

BDJ

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Launched in 2015, the large-scale initiative Indonesian Biodiversity Discovery and Information System (IndoBioSys) is a multidisciplinary German-Indonesian collaboration with the main goal of establishing a standardised framework for species discovery and all associated steps. One aspect of the project includes the application of DNA barcoding for species identification and biodiversity assessments. In this framework, we conducted a large-scale assessment of the insect fauna of the Mount Halimun-Salak National Park which is one of the largest tropical rain-forest ecosystems left in West Java. In this study, we present the results of processing 5,034 specimens of Phoridae (scuttle flies) via DNA barcoding. Despite limited sequencing success, we obtained more than 500 clusters using different algorithms (RESL, ASAP, SpeciesIdentifier). Moreover, Chao statistics indicated that we drastically undersampled all trap sites, implying that the true diversity of Phoridae is, in fact, much higher. With this data release, we hope to shed some light on the hidden diversity of this megadiverse group of flies.

show abstract

Using Malaise traps for collecting Lepidoptera (Insecta), with notes on the preparation of Macrolepidoptera from ethanol

Cited by 11 publications

References 27 publications

Standards and Best Practices for Monitoring and Benchmarking Insects

Standards and Best Practices for Monitoring and Benchmarking Insects

Depicting environmental gradients from Malaise trap samples: Is ethanol‐basedDNAmetabarcoding enough?

DNA barcoding data release for the Phoridae (Insecta, Diptera) of the Halimun-Salak National Park (Java, Indonesia)

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About