首页> 外文OA文献 >Comparison of pitfall traps and litter bags for sampling ground-dwelling arthropods
【2h】

Comparison of pitfall traps and litter bags for sampling ground-dwelling arthropods

机译:坑式陷阱和垃圾袋采样地面节肢动物的比较

代理获取
本网站仅为用户提供外文OA文献查询和代理获取服务,本网站没有原文。下单后我们将采用程序或人工为您竭诚获取高质量的原文,但由于OA文献来源多样且变更频繁,仍可能出现获取不到、文献不完整或与标题不符等情况,如果获取不到我们将提供退款服务。请知悉。

摘要

For their simplicity and effectiveness, pitfall traps have become a standard technique to measure the activity and relative abundance of ground-dwelling arthropods. Permeable screen or mesh bags filled with plant material, referred to as litter bags, have also recently been employed as a complementary sampling technique for epigeal taxa. The anticipated need for increased field research on arthropod populations, particularly in transgenic crops with insecticidal properties, suggests that a relative assessment of both sampling methods could contribute to the design of future studies. Comparisons among pitfall traps, and litter bags placed above- or below-ground indicated that aboveground litter bags most frequently succeeded in collecting certain groups of arthropods associated with moisture and sheltered areas, including centipedes (Chilopoda) and beetle larvae (Carabidae, Staphylinidae). Conversely, pitfall traps most often captured taxa considered active at ground level, such as adult carabids or harvestmen (Opiliones). For taxa collected in u3e40% of all three trap types, bootstrap confidence intervals for the coefficient of variation (CV; used to assess precision or sampling efficiency) showed that above-ground litter bags were significantly more precise than pitfall traps for sampling elongate springtails (Collembola) and adult rove beetles (Staphylinidae), but only during the first year of sampling. While below-ground litter bags often appeared similar to one or both of the other trap types, in no case were below-ground litter bags best based on frequency of collection or CV. Though differences were not always consistent between years, results suggest that the additional effort required to sample using litter bags may be justified for the collection of some ground-dwelling taxa.
机译:由于其简单性和有效性,陷阱陷阱已成为衡量地面节肢动物活动和相对丰度的标准技术。最近,还使用填充有植物材料的可渗透的筛网或网眼袋(称为垃圾袋)作为epi毛分类单元的补充采样技术。预计需要对节肢动物种群进行更多的田间研究,尤其是对具有杀虫特性的转基因作物进行田间研究,这表明对这两种采样方法的相对评估可能有助于未来研究的设计。陷阱陷阱和放在地上或地下的垃圾袋之间的比较表明,地上的垃圾袋最常成功地收集某些与水分和庇护区有关的节肢动物,包括cent(Chilopoda)和甲虫幼虫(Carabidae,Staphylinidae)。相反,陷阱陷阱最常捕获的是在地面上活跃的类群,例如成年的钩齿类动物或收割者(尖头目)。对于在所有三种捕集器类型中均占40%的分类单元而言,变异系数的引导程序置信区间(CV;用于评估精度或采样效率)表明,地上的垃圾袋比对陷阱进行采样的陷阱要精确得多。 (Collembola)和成年甲虫(Staphylinidae),但仅在采样的第一年内。虽然地下垃圾袋通常看起来与其他两个或多个陷阱类型相似,但从收集频率或CV来看,地下垃圾袋绝非最佳选择。尽管不同年份之间的差异并不总是一致的,但结果表明,使用垃圾袋采样所需的额外努力可能是合理的,以收集一些地面居住的分类单元。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
代理获取

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号