Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-mlc7c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-17T23:10:10.036Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Comparison of ground beetles (Coleoptera: Carabidae) and spiders (Araneae) collected in pan and pitfall traps

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 April 2012

Christopher M. Buddle  and
H.E. James Hammond
Christopher M. Buddle*
Affiliation:
Department of Natural Resource Sciences, McGill University, Macdonald Campus, 21 111 Lakeshore Road, Ste. Anne de Bellevue, Quebec, Canada H9X 3V9
H.E. James Hammond
Affiliation:
Natural Resources Canada, Canadian Forest Service, Northern Forestry Centre, 5320–122 Street, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada T6H 3S5
*
1Corresponding author (e-mail: buddle@nrs.mcgill.ca).
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Pitfall trapping is a widely used sampling method for biodiversity-related research of ground-dwelling arthropods. The trap is a container, usually with a preservative, that is sunk into the ground to collect arthropods which happen upon the trap perimeter and fall in (Lemieux and Lindgren 1999; Work et al. 2002). Two types receive the most use: deep circular pitfall traps and shallow rectangular pan traps (Marshall et al. 2001). The preserving fluid can influence trap efficacy (Deville and Wheeler 1998). Our objectives were to compare the efficiency of pitfall and pan traps with and without detergent in the preserving fluid (Marshall et al. 1994), using carabid beetles (Coleoptera: Carabidae) and spiders (Araneae) as focal taxa.

Type
Articles
Information
The Canadian Entomologist , Volume 135 , Issue 4 , August 2003 , pp. 609 - 611
Copyright
Copyright © Entomological Society of Canada 2003

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

Bousquet, Y. (Editor). 1991. Checklist of beetles of Canada and Alaska. Agriculture Canada Research Branch Publication 1861/EGoogle Scholar
Buddle, C.M., Hammond, H.E.J. 2003. Summary of ground-dwelling arthropods collected by pitfall and pan traps in a deciduous forest in central Alberta. Available from http://www.nrs.mcgill.ca/buddle/Buddle [accessed on 28 April 2003]Google Scholar
Deville, N., Wheeler, T.A. 1998. The effect of different preserving fluids on insect catches in yellow pan traps. Proceedings of the Entomological Society of Ontario 129: 31–7Google Scholar
Lemieux, J.P., Lindgren, B.S. 1999. A pitfall trap for large-scale trapping of Carabidae: comparison against conventional design, using two different preservatives. Pedobiologia 43: 245–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marshall, S.A., Anderson, R.S., Roughley, R.E., Behan-Pelletier, V., Danks, H.V. 1994. Terrestrial arthropod biodiversity: planning a study and recommended sampling techniques. Bulletin of the Entomological Society of Canada Supplement 26(1)Google Scholar
Marshall, S.A., Buddle, C.M., Sinclair, B.J., Buckle, D.J. 2001. Spiders, flies and some other arthropods of the Fathom Five National Marine Park islands and the upper Bruce Peninsula. pp 191–229in Parker, S., Munawar, M. (Eds), Ecology, culture, and conservation of a protected area: Fathom Five National Marine Park, Canada. Ecovision World Monograph Series. Leiden, the Netherlands: Backhuys PublishersGoogle Scholar
Platnick, N.I. 2003. The world spider catalog. Version 3.5. New York: American Museum of Natural History.Available from http://research.amnh.org/entomology/spiders/catalog81-87/INTRO1.html [accessed on 28 April 2003]Google Scholar
Simberloff, D.S. 1978. Use of rarefaction and related methods in ecology. pp 150–65 in Dickson, K.L., Garins, J. Jr, Livingston, R.J. (Eds), Biological data in water pollution assessment: quantitative and statistical analysis. American Society for Testing and Materials STP 652 [West Conshohocken, Pennsylvania: American Society for Testing and Materials]Google Scholar
Spence, J.R., Niemelä, J. 1994. Sampling carabid assemblages with pitfall traps: the madness and the method. The Canadian Entomologist 126: 881–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Work, T.T., Buddle, C.M., Korinus, L.M., Spence, J.R. 2002. Pitfall trap size and capture of three taxa of litterdwelling arthropods: implications for biodiversity studies. Environmental Entomology 31: 438–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar