Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-dfsvx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T13:32:44.241Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

COMPARISON OF INSECT FAUNA CAPTURED IN SIX DIFFERENT TRAP TYPES IN A DOUGLAS-FIR FOREST

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 May 2012

Christopher L. Canaday
Christopher L. Canaday
Affiliation:
Departments of Biology and Wildlife, Humboldt State University, Arcata, California, USA95521
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Insects were sampled in a Douglas-fir forest in California to evaluate differences among inexpensive survey methods. Sampling was done with sweep nets and with window, sticky, light, suspended cone, and two kinds of yellow pan traps. Also examined were effects of trap location in the given tree and the following tree species: Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii Franco), canyon live oak (Quercus chrysolepis Liebm.), tanoak (Lithocarpus densiflorus Rehd.), Pacific madrone (Arbutus menziesii Pursh.), and big-leaf maple (Acer macrophyllum Pursh.). Relative abundance and faunistic similarity of the 9662 insects caught varied greatly by trap type and little by tree species or trap location. Family-level taxonomic richness differed among the diverse trap types, tree species, and trap locations.

Résumé

Echantillonnage des insectes en un forêt de Pseudotsuga menziesii Franco, en Californie a été faite pour évaluer les différences parmis méthodes pas chères de quantifier l’abondance. L’échantillonnage a été faite avec filets à main et avec pièges de fenêtre, collant, lumière, cône suspendu, et deux types de bassin jaune. Aussi examiné étaient les effets de la position de la piège en l’arbre donné et de ceux espèces d’arbre : Pseudotsuga menziesii Franco., Quercus chrysolepis Liebm., Lithocarpus densiflorus Rehd., Arbutus menziesii Pursh., et Acer macrophyllum Pursh. Abondance relative et ressemblance faunique des 9662 insectes différaient grandement parmis les diverses pièges mais peu parmis les différentes espèces d’arbres et positions de pièges. Diversité taxonomique, au niveau de la famille, différait selon les diverses pièges, espèces d’arbre, et positions de piège.

Type
Articles
Information
The Canadian Entomologist , Volume 119 , Issue 12 , December 1987 , pp. 1101 - 1108
Copyright
Copyright © Entomological Society of Canada 1987

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.)

References

Borror, D.J., DeLong, D.M., and Triplehorn, C.A.. 1981. An introduction to the study of insects, 5th ed. Saunders College Publ., New York.Google Scholar
Conover, W.J. 1980. Practical nonparametric statistics, 2nd ed. John Wiley, New York. 493 pp.Google Scholar
Huhta, V. 1979. Evaluation of different similarity indices as measures of succession in arthropod communities of the forest floor after clear-cutting. Oecologia 41: 11–23.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Johnson, C.G. 1950. The comparison of suction trap, sticky trap and tow-net for the quantitative sampling of small airborn insects. Ann. appl. Biol. 37: 268–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Juillet, J.A. 1963. A comparison of four types of traps for capturing flying insects. Can. J. Zool. 41: 219–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kornerup, A., and Wanscher, J.H.. 1978. Methuen handbook of color, 3rd ed. Eyre Methuen, London. 252 pp.Google Scholar
Quinney, T.E., and Ankney, C.D.. 1985. Prey selection in tree swallows. Auk 102: 245–250.Google Scholar
Romesburg, H.C. 1984. Cluster analysis for researchers. Wadsworth, London.Google Scholar
Shepherd, R.F. 1985. Pest management of Douglas-fir tussock moth: estimating larval density by sequential sampling. Can. Ent. 117: 1111–1115.Google Scholar
Simberloff, D. 1978. Use of rarefaction and related methods in ecology. pp. 150–165in Dickson, K.L. et al. , (Eds.), Biological Data in Water Pollution Assessment—Quantitative and Statistical Analyses. American Society for Testing and Materials. STP 652.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sokal, R.R., and Rohlf, F.J.. 1981. Biometry, 2nd ed. Freeman, San Francisco. 859 pp.Google Scholar
Southwood, T.R.E. 1978. Ecological methods, 2nd ed. John Wiley, New York. 524 pp.Google Scholar
Wolda, H. 1981. Similarity indices, sample sizes and diversity. Oecologia 50: 296–302.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zar, J.H. 1984. Biostatistical analysis, 2nd ed. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey.Google Scholar