No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Effect of pitfall trap depth on epigaeic beetle sampling (Coleoptera: Carabidae and Staphylinidae) in wet forested ecosites in Alberta, Canada
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 24 August 2018
Abstract
The depth at which pitfall traps were sunk into the ground and the resulting catches of epigaeic Carabidae (Coleoptera) and Staphylinidae (Coleoptera) assemblages in subhygric to hydric ecosites with very deep organic soil layers was investigated in the upper foothills ecoregion of Alberta, Canada. Traps were installed at seven sites, with six surface traps (the pitfall trap lip <5 cm below soil surface) and six deep traps (the pitfall trap lip >20 cm below soil surface) at each site. A total of 5289 beetles representing 75 taxa were collected. There were no significant effects of trap depth on catch. Rarefaction estimates of species diversity were higher in surface pitfall traps for both taxa. The similarity of pooled catches between deep and surface traps was on average 75%, suggesting that both trap types were collecting similar faunas. We found no advantage to using deep pitfall traps in addition to surface traps to sample the epigaeic fauna of wet forest stands and peatlands.
- Type
- Techniques
- Information
- Copyright
- © 2018 Entomological Society of Canada
Footnotes
Subject Editor: Christopher Buddle
References
Barber, H.S. 1931. Traps for cave-inhabiting insects. Journal of Elisha Mitchell Science Society, 46: 259–266.Google Scholar
Beckingham, J.D., Corns, I.G.W., and Archibald, J.H. 1996. Field guide to ecosites of west-central Alberta. Special Report 9. Natural Resources Canada, Canadian Forest Service, Northwest Region, Northern Forestry Centre, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.Google Scholar
Bergeron, J.A.C., Spence, J.R., Volney, W.J.A., Pinzon, J., and Hartley, D.J. 2013. Effect of habitat type and pitfall trap installation on captures of epigaeic arthropod assemblages in the boreal forest. The Canadian Entomologist, 145: 547–565.Google Scholar
Brown, G.R.
Matthews, I.M. 2016. A review of extensive variation in the design of pitfall traps and a proposal for a standard pitfall trap design for monitoring ground-active arthropod biodiversity. Ecology and Evolution, 6: 3953–3964.Google Scholar
Campbell, J.M. 1982. A revision of the North American Omaliinae (Coleoptera: Staphylinidae) 3. The genus Acidota Stephens. The Canadian Entomologist, 114: 1003–1029.Google Scholar
Dahl, F. 1896. Vergleichende Untersuchungen über die Lebenseweise wirbelloser Aasfresser. Sitzungberichte Königlich preussichen akademie der wissenschaften, 1896: 17–30.Google Scholar
De Cáceres, M.
Jansen, F. 2015. Package ‘indicspecies’. R package version 1.7.5 [online]. Available from http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=indicspecies [accessed 17 March 2016].Google Scholar
Dufrêne, M.
Legendre, P. 1997. Species assemblages and indicator species: the need for a flexible asymmetrical approach. Ecological Monographs, 67: 345–366.Google Scholar
Faragella, A.A.
Adam, E.E. 1985. Pitfall trapping of tenebrionid and carabid beetles (Coleoptera) in different habitats in the central region of Saudi Arabia. Zeitschrift für Angewandte Entomologie, 99: 466–471.Google Scholar
Frank, J.H. 1979. A new species of Proteinus Latreille (Coleoptera: Staphylinidae) from Florida. Florida Entomologist, 62: 329–340.Google Scholar
Greenslade, P.J.M. 1964. Pitfall trapping as a method for studying populations of Carabidae (Coleoptera). Journal of Animal Ecology, 33: 301–310.Google Scholar
Heinselman, M.L. 1963. Forest sites, bog processes, and peatland types in the glacial lake Agassiz region, Minnesota. Ecological Monographs, 33: 327–374.Google Scholar
Heliölä, J., Koivula, M.,Niemelä, J. 2001. Distribution of carabid beetles (Coleoptera, Carabidae) across a boreal forest–clearcut ecotone. Conservation Biology, 15: 370–377.Google Scholar
Knight, W.J.
Holloway, J.D. 1990. Insects and the rain forests of south east Asia (Wallacea). The Royal Entomological Society of London, London, United Kingdom.Google Scholar
Larochelle, A.
Larivière, M.-C. 2003. A natural history of the ground-beetles (Coleoptera: Carabidae) of America north of Mexico. Pensoft Publishers, Sofia, Bulgaria.Google Scholar
McKenzie, J.M., Siegel, D.I., Rosenberry, D.O., Glaser, P.H., and Voss, C.I. 2007. Heat transport in the Red Lake Bog, Glacial Lake Agassiz peatlands. Hydrological Processes, 21: 369–378.Google Scholar
Moore, T.R. 1987. Thermal regime of peatlands in subarctic eastern Canada. Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences, 24: 1352–1359.Google Scholar
Oksanen, J., Blanchet, F., Kindt, R., Legendre, P., Minchin, P.R., O’Hara, R.B., et al. 2015. Package ‘vegan’. R package version 2.3-2 [online]. Available from http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=vegan [accessed 16 January 2016].Google Scholar
Pendola, A.
New, T.R. 2007. Depth of pitfall traps–does it affect interpretation of ant (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) assemblages? Journal of Insect Conservation, 11: 199–201.Google Scholar
Simberloff, D. 1978. Use of rarefaction and related methods in ecology. In Biological data in water pollution assessment: quantitative and statistical analyses, a symposium held in Minneapolis, Minnesota, 20–21 June 1977. Edited by K.L. Dickson, J. Cairns, and R.J. Livingston. Publication STP 652. American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States of America. Pp. 150–165.Google Scholar
Skvarla, M.J., Larson, J.L.
Dowling, A.P.G. 2014. Pitfalls and preservatives: a review. Journal of the Entomological Society of Ontario, 145: 15–43.Google Scholar
Spence, J.R. and Niemelä, J.K. 1994. Sampling carabid assemblages with pitfall traps: the madness and the method. The Canadian Entomologist, 126: 881–894.Google Scholar
Zanetti, A. 2014. Taxonomic revision of North American Eusphalerum Kraatz, 1857 (Coleoptera, Staphylinidae, Omaliinae). Insecta Mundi, 379: 1–80.Google Scholar