Hostname: page-component-77f85d65b8-8wtlm Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-04-16T00:31:54.625Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Comparison between window traps and pan traps in monitoring flower-visiting insects in agricultural fields

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 April 2022

Xiaoyu Shi Open the ORCID record for Xiaoyu Shi [Opens in a new window] ,
Daomeng Fu ,
Haijun Xiao Open the ORCID record for Haijun Xiao [Opens in a new window] ,
Jenny A. Hodgson Open the ORCID record for Jenny A. Hodgson [Opens in a new window] ,
Dongyue Yan  and
Yi Zou Open the ORCID record for Yi Zou [Opens in a new window]
Xiaoyu Shi
Affiliation:
Department of Health and Environmental Sciences, Xi'an Jiaotong-Liverpool University, Suzhou, China
Daomeng Fu
Affiliation:
Institute of Entomology, Jiangxi Agricultural University, Nanchang, China College of Resources and Environmental Sciences, China Agricultural University, Beijing, China
Haijun Xiao*
Affiliation:
Institute of Entomology, Jiangxi Agricultural University, Nanchang, China School of Grassland Science, Beijing Forestry University, Beijing, China
Jenny A. Hodgson
Affiliation:
Department of Evolution, Ecology and Behaviour, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK
Dongyue Yan
Affiliation:
Department of Health and Environmental Sciences, Xi'an Jiaotong-Liverpool University, Suzhou, China
Yi Zou*
Affiliation:
Department of Health and Environmental Sciences, Xi'an Jiaotong-Liverpool University, Suzhou, China
*
Authors for correspondence: Haijun Xiao, Email: hjxiao@jxau.edu.cn; Yi Zou, Email: yi.zou@xjtlu.edu.cn
Authors for correspondence: Haijun Xiao, Email: hjxiao@jxau.edu.cn; Yi Zou, Email: yi.zou@xjtlu.edu.cn
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Sampling flower-visiting insects in agricultural fields at large spatial and temporal scales is significant for understanding local insect pollinator communities. The most commonly used method, pan trap, has been criticized due to its attractant bias. A window trap (also referred to as the flight-intercept trap) is a non-attractant sampling method, which has been applied in forests and grasslands, but rarely in agricultural fields. We aim to test whether we can replace pan traps with window traps in agricultural fields by comparing species richness and species composition between the two methods, and to show whether flower-visiting insects collected in both traps can reflect flower-visiting activity recorded by camera observation. We conducted a 2-year study to compare the performance of these sampling methods in an oilseed rape field. Results showed that the relative abundance of dominant flower-visiting species was highly correlated between the window trap and the pan trap samples, while window traps caught more individuals and higher (rarefied) species richness than pan traps. The species composition of window traps was more similar to each other than that of pan traps. The proportion of honey bees (Apis spp.) collected in both traps underestimated their flower-visiting activity recorded by camera observations, while sweat bees (Halictidae) and butterflies (Lepidoptera) were overestimated. Our study suggests that the window trap has the potential to serve as an alternative sampling method of flower-visiting insects to the pan trap. However, we need to be cautious when using specimens caught in both traps as a proxy of their flower-visiting activity.

Keywords

Dipteraflight-intercept trapflower visitationHymenopterainsect surveyoilseed rapepollinatorswild bee

Information

Type
Research Paper
Information
Bulletin of Entomological Research , Volume 112 , Issue 5 , October 2022 , pp. 691 - 696
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Banaszak-Cibicka, W, Takacs, V, Kesy, M, Langowska, A, Blecharczyk, A, Sawinska, Z, Sparks, TH and Tryjanowski, P (2019) Manure application improves both bumblebee flower visitation and crop yield in intensive farmland. Basic and Applied Ecology 36, 26–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bartholomee, O and Lavorel, S (2019) Disentangling the diversity of definitions for the pollination ecosystem service and associated estimation methods. Ecological Indicators 107, 105576.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baum, KA and Wallen, KE (2011) Potential bias in pan trapping as a function of floral abundance. Journal of the Kansas Entomological Society 84, 155–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bommarco, R, Marini, L and Vaissiere, BE (2012) Insect pollination enhances seed yield, quality, and market value in oilseed rape. Oecologia 169, 1025–1032.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Boyer, KJ, Fragoso, FP, Dieterich Mabin, ME and Brunet, J (2020) Netting and pan traps fail to identify the pollinator guild of an agricultural crop. Scientific Reports 10, 321.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Campbell, JW and Hanula, JL (2007) Efficiency of Malaise traps and colored pan traps for collecting flower visiting insects from three forested ecosystems. Journal of Insect Conservation 11, 399–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cane, JH, Minckley, RL and Kervin, LJ (2000) Sampling bees (Hymenoptera: Apiformes) for pollinator community studies: pitfalls of pan-trapping. Journal of the Kansas Entomological Society 73, 225–231.Google Scholar
Colwell, RK, Chao, A, Gotelli, NJ, Lin, SY, Mao, CX, Chazdon, RL and Longino, JT (2012) Models and estimators linking individual-based and sample-based rarefaction, extrapolation and comparison of assemblages. Journal of Plant Ecology 5, 3–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garibaldi, LA, Steffan-Dewenter, I, Winfree, R, Aizen, MA, Bommarco, R, Cunningham, SA, Kremen, C, Carvalheiro, LG, Harder, LD, Afik, O, Bartomeus, I, Benjamin, F, Boreux, V, Cariveau, D, Chacoff, NP, Dudenhoffer, JH, Freitas, BM, Ghazoul, J, Greenleaf, S, Hipolito, J, Holzschuh, A, Howlett, B, Isaacs, R, Javorek, SK, Kennedy, CM, Krewenka, KM, Krishnan, S, Mandelik, Y, Mayfield, MM, Motzke, I, Munyuli, T, Nault, BA, Otieno, M, Petersen, J, Pisanty, G, Potts, SG, Rader, R, Ricketts, TH, Rundlof, M, Seymour, CL, Schuepp, C, Szentgyorgyi, H, Taki, H, Tscharntke, T, Vergara, CH, Viana, BF, Wanger, TC, Westphal, C, Williams, N and Klein, AM (2013) Wild pollinators enhance fruit set of crops regardless of honey bee abundance. Science 339, 6127.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Grindeland, JM, Sletvold, N and Ims, RA (2005) Effects of floral display size and plant density on pollinator visitation rate in a natural population of Digitalis purpurea. Functional Ecology 19, 383–390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Howlett, BG, Walker, MK, Newstrom-Lloyd, LE, Donovan, BJ and Teulon, DAJ (2009) Window traps and direct observations record similar arthropod flower visitor assemblages in two mass flowering crops. Journal of Applied Entomology 133, 553–564.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hsieh, TC, Ma, KH., Chao, A and McInerny, G (2016) iNEXT: an R package for rarefaction and extrapolation of species diversity (Hill numbers). Methods in Ecology and Evolution 7, 1451–1456.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klein, AM, Vaissiere, BE, Cane, JH, Steffan-Dewenter, I, Cunningham, SA, Kremen, C and Tscharntke, T (2007) Importance of pollinators in changing landscapes for world crops. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 274, 303–313.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kovacs-Hostyanszki, A, Batary, P and Baldi, A (2011) Local and landscape effects on bee communities of Hungarian winter cereal fields. Agricultural and Forest Entomology 13, 59–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liu, RR, Chen, DL, Luo, SD, Xu, SJ, Xu, HL, Shi, XY and Zou, Y (2020) Quantifying pollination efficiency of flower-visiting insects and its application in estimating pollination services for common buckwheat. Agriculture Ecosystems & Environment 301, 107011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCravy, KW (2018) A review of sampling and monitoring methods for beneficial arthropods in agroecosystems. Insects 9, 170.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
O'Connor, RS, Kunin, WE, Garratt, MPD, Potts, SG, Roy, HE, Andrews, C, Jones, CM, Peyton, JM, Savage, J, Harvey, MC, Morris, RKA, Roberts, SPM, Wright, I, Vanbergen, AJ and Carvell, C (2019) Monitoring insect pollinators and flower visitation: the effectiveness and feasibility of different survey methods. Methods in Ecology and Evolution 10, 2129–2140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oksanen, J, Blanchet, FG, Friendly, M, Kindt, R, Legendre, P, McGlinn, D, Minchin, PR, O'Hara, RB, Simpson, GL, Solymos, P, Stevens, MH, Szoecs, E and Wagner, H (2020) Vegan: Community Ecology Package. R Package Version. 2.5-7.Google Scholar
Petersen, JD and Nault, BA (2014) Landscape diversity moderates the effects of bee visitation frequency to flowers on crop production. Journal of Applied Ecology 51, 1347–1356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Popic, TJ, Davila, YC and Wardle, GM (2013) Evaluation of common methods for sampling invertebrate pollinator assemblages: net sampling out-perform pan traps. PLoS One 8, e66665.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Potts, SG, Imperatriz-Fonseca, V, Ngo, HT, Aizen, MA, Biesmeijer, JC, Breeze, TD, Dicks, LV, Garibaldi, LA, Hill, R, Settele, J and Vanbergen, AJ (2016) Safeguarding pollinators and their values to human well-being. Nature 540, 220–229.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Prendergast, KS, Menz, MHM, Dixon, KW and Bateman, PW (2020) The relative performance of sampling methods for native bees: an empirical test and review of the literature. Ecosphere 11, e03076.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
R Core Team, (2016) A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.Google Scholar
Roulston, TH, Smith, SA and Brewster, AL (2007) A comparison of pan trap and intensive net sampling techniques for documenting a bee (Hymenoptera: Apiformes) fauna. Journal of the Kansas Entomological Society 80, 179–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rubene, D, Schroeder, M and Ranius, T (2015) Estimating bee and wasp (Hymenoptera: Aculeata) diversity on clear-cuts in forest landscapes – an evaluation of sampling methods. Insect Conservation and Diversity 8, 261–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sih, A and Baltus, MS (1987) Patch size, pollinator behavior, and pollinator limitation in catnip. Ecology 68, 1679–1690.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sverdrup-Thygeson, A and Birkemoe, T (2009) What window traps can tell us: effect of placement, forest openness and beetle reproduction in retention trees. Journal of Insect Conservation 13, 183–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Templ, B, Mozes, E, Templ, M, Foldesi, R, Szirak, A, Baldi, A and Kovacs-Hostyanszki, A (2019) Habitat-dependency of transect walk and pan trap methods for bee sampling in farmlands. Journal of Apicultural Science 63, 93–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trueblood, DD, Gallagher, ED and Gould, DM (1994) Three stages of seasonal succession on the Savin Hill Cove mudflat, Boston Harbor. Limnology and Oceanography 39, 1440–1454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wells, W and Decker, T (2006) A comparison of three types of insect traps for collecting non-formicidae Hymenopera on the island of Dominica. Southwestern Entomologist 31, 59–68.Google Scholar
Westphal, C, Bommarco, R, Carre, G, Lamborn, E, Morison, N, Petanidou, T, Potts, SG, Roberts, SPM, Szentgyorgyi, H, Tscheulin, T, Vaissiere, BE, Woyciechowski, M, Biesmeijer, JC, Kunin, WE, Settele, J and Steffan-Dewenter, I (2008) Measuring bee diversity in different European habitats and biogeographical regions. Ecological Monographs 78, 653–671.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zou, Y and Axmacher, JC (2020) The Chord-Normalized Expected Species Shared (CNESS)-distance represents a superior measure of species turnover patterns. Methods in Ecology and Evolution 11, 273–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zou, Y, Feng, J, Xue, D, Sang, W and Axmacher, JC (2012) A comparison of terrestrial arthropod sampling methods. Journal of Resources & Ecology 3, 174–182.Google Scholar
Zou, Y, Xiao, H, Bianchi, FJJA, Jauker, F, Luo, S and van der Werf, W (2017 a) Wild pollinators enhance oilseed rape yield in small-holder farming systems in China. BMC Ecology 17, 6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zou, Y, Bianchi, FJJA, Jauker, F, Xiao, HJ, Chen, JH, Cresswell, J, Luo, SD, Huang, JK, Deng, XZ, Hou, LL and van der Werf, W (2017 b) Landscape effects on pollinator communities and pollination services in small-holder agroecosystems. Agriculture Ecosystems & Environment 246, 109–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: PDF

Shi et al. supplementary material

Shi et al. supplementary material

Download Shi et al. supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 1.4 MB