Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-c4f8m Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T03:45:58.277Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Release and recapture of three insect species test the efficacy of trap method and air flow in insect containment

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 July 2012

R.A. De Clerck-Floate ,
P. Saunders  and
K.D. Floate
R.A. De Clerck-Floate*
Affiliation:
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Lethbridge Research Centre, 5403 – 1 Avenue South, Lethbridge, Alberta, Canada T1J 4B1
P. Saunders
Affiliation:
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Lethbridge Research Centre, 5403 – 1 Avenue South, Lethbridge, Alberta, Canada T1J 4B1
K.D. Floate
Affiliation:
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Lethbridge Research Centre, 5403 – 1 Avenue South, Lethbridge, Alberta, Canada T1J 4B1
*
1Corresponding author (e-mail: Rosemarie.DeClerck-Floate@agr.gc.ca).
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Regulations for the containment of arthropods stipulate that containment facilities be specially designed and operated to prevent arthropod escapes. A key area for security is the entrance–exit anteroom on the facility's periphery, which is to have an insect trap for capturing incident arthropods, and an inward directional flow of air. To test the efficacy of these features, a release-recapture study was conducted in the anteroom of an operational containment facility using different trap methods (ceiling-mounted ultraviolet [UV] or incandescent light traps, floor-situated pan water trap), and three insect species (dung beetle, Chilothorax distinctus (Müller) (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae) – formerly known as Aphodius distinctus; house fly, Musca domestica Linnaeus (Diptera: Muscidae); parasitic wasp, Urolepis rufipes (Ashmead) (Hymenoptera: Pteromalidae)). The optimum method for capturing insects within the anteroom varied with species and their behaviours; UV light trap + water trap for C. distinctus (mean catch: 82.3% ± 2.7% of recovered beetles), water trap + incandescent light trap for M. domestica (mean catch: 78.3% ± 4.1%), and UV light trap for U. rufipes (mean catch: 13.0% ± 8.5%; but no trap worked particularly well). Inward flow of air was deemed most effective for containing the small and active U. rufipes, with 23% of detected escapees moving deeper into quarantine. Awareness of insect behaviour in artificial environments is advised for determining whether additional security protocols are required.

Type
Original Article
Information
The Canadian Entomologist , Volume 144 , Issue 4 , 03 August 2012 , pp. 609 - 616
Copyright
Copyright © Entomological Society of Canada 2012

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

Adair, D.Irwin, R. 2008. A practical guide to containment. Plant biosafety in research greenhouses, 2nd ed. Information Systems for Biotechnology, Virginia Tech, University Printing Services, Blacksburg, Virginia, United States of America.Google Scholar
Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA). 2007. Containment standards for facilities handling plant pests, 1st ed. Catalogue Number A104-65/2008E. Canadian Food Inspection Agency, Ottawa, Canada.Google Scholar
Christensen, C.M.Dobson, R.C. 1976. Biological and ecological studies on Aphodius distinctus (Mueller) (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae). American Midland Naturalist, 95: 242–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Clerck-Floate, R.A., Mason, P.G., Parker, D.J., Gillespie, D.R., Broadbent, A.B., Boivin, G. 2006. Guide for the first-time importation and release of arthropod biological control agents in Canada. Catalogue Number A42-105/2006E or 2006F. Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada Publication, Ottawa, Canada.Google Scholar
García-López, A., Micó, E., Zumbado, M.A., Galante, E. 2011. Sampling scarab beetles in tropical forests: the effect of light source and night sampling periods [online]. Journal of Insect Science, 11: article 95. Available from http://www.insectscience.org/11.95/i1536-2442-11-95.pdf [accessed 6 February 2012].CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hassall, M., Zimmer, M., Loureiro, S. 2005. Questions and possible new directions for research into the biology of terrestrial isopods. European Journal of Soil Biology, 41: 57–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Howarth, F.G.Polhemus, D.A. 1991. A review of the Hawaiian stream insect fauna. Proceedings of the 1990 Symposium on Freshwater Stream Biology and Fisheries Management. In New directions in research, management and conservation of Hawaiian freshwater stream ecosystems. Edited by W.S. Devick. Hawaii Department of Land and Natural Resources, Honolulu. pp. 40–50.Google Scholar
Johnsen, S., Kelber, A., Warrant, E., Sweeney, A.M., Widder, E.A., Lee, R.L. Jr., et al. 2006. Crepuscular and nocturnal illumination and its effects on color perception by the nocturnal hawkmoth Deilephila elpenor. Journal of Experimental Biology, 209: 789–800.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kahn, R.P. 1999. Biological concepts. In Containment facilities and safeguards for exotic plant pathogens and pests. Edited by R.P. Kahn and S.B. Mathur. American Phytopathological Society Press, St. Paul, Minnesota, United States of America. pp. 8–16.Google Scholar
North American Plant Protection Organization (NAPPO). 2004. North American Plant Protection Organization regional standard for phytosanitary measures (RSPM) No. 22. Guidelines for the construction and operation of a containment facility for insects and mites used as biological control agents. Secretariat of the North American Plant Protection Organization, Ottawa, Canada.Google Scholar
Seamans, H.L. 1934. An insect weather prophet. Annual Report of the Quebec Society of Plant Protection, 134: 111–117.Google Scholar
Snell, E. 2002. Factors affecting laboratory procedures for evaluating efficacy of insect light traps for house flies. In Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Urban Pests. Edited by S.C. Jones, J. Zhai and W.H. Robinson. Pocohontas Press, Blacksburg, Virginia, United States of America. pp. 187–198.Google Scholar