5 - Invertebrates
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 September 2012
Edited by
Summary
Introduction
As with other groups, the most important thing when censusing invertebrates is knowing why you are doing it and how you intend to analyse and use the results. The commonest reasons for censusing invertebrates are to
evaluate the importance of a particular area for them and, in doing so, identify how the invertebrate fauna can be best conserved;
monitor changes in the abundance and assemblages of species; and
investigate the abundance of invertebrates as prey for other species, often birds.
Different aims require different approaches. The main requirement for evaluation surveys is that most or all habitats and micro-habitats thought likely to be important to invertebrates at a site are sampled. Evaluation surveys usually concentrate on searching specific habitats and micro-habitats considered important for species of high conservation value. They often use a range of complementary techniques to maximise the range of species recorded. Ideally, such surveys should be standardised as far as possible, although this can be difficult in practice, particularly if a large proportion of the surveyor's time is spent actively searching various habitats and micro-habitats at a site. At least the date, time spent surveying the site and weather conditions should be recorded. Several visits at various times throughout the active periods of the respective groups will usually be needed in order to obtain a reasonable impression of the importance of the site.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Ecological Census TechniquesA Handbook, pp. 214 - 249Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2006
References
, , & (1983). The performance of a new biological water quality score system based on macro-invertebrates over a wide range of unpolluted running-water sites. Water Research 17, 333–347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(1986). Canonical correspondance analysis: a new eigenvector technique for multivariate direct gradient analysis. Ecology 67, 1167–1179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(1994). Canonical community ordination. Part 1: basic theory and linear models. Ecoscience 1, 127–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(1993). Review of a method to monitor adult dragonfly populations. Journal of the British Dragonfly Society 9, 1–4.Google Scholar
& (2004). Quantifying the effects of habitat structure on prey detectibility and accessibility to farmland birds. Ibis 146 (suppl. 2), 123–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
& (2001). Evaluating mustard extracts for earthworm sampling. Pedobiologia 45, 272–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Disney, R. H. L. (1986). Assessments using invertebrates: posing the problem. In Wildlife Conservation Evaluation, ed. , London, Chapman & Hall, pp. 271–293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Disney, R. H. L. (1987). Rapid surveys of arthropods and the ranking of sites in terms of conservation value. In Biological Surveys of Estuaries and Coasts, eds. & . Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, pp. 73–75.Google Scholar
, , et al. (1982). Collecting methods and the adequacy of attempted fauna surveys, with reference to the Diptera. Field Studies 5, 607–621.Google Scholar
& (1981a). A comparative study of seven grabs used for sampling benthic macroinvertebrates in rivers. Freshwater Biology 11, 99–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
& (1981b). A comparative study of four dredges used for sampling benthic macroinvertebrates in rivers. Freshwater Biology 11, 245–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elliott, J. M. & Tullett, P. A. (1978). A Bibliography of Samplers for Benthic Invertebrates. Occasional Publication. No. 4. Ambleside, Freshwater Biological Association. (Supplement, 1983, Publication No. 20).
, & (1992). Multiple tube sampler for benthic and pelagic invertebrates in shallow wetlands. Journal of Wildlife Management 56, 186–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, & (1999). The Saproxylic Quality Index: evaluating wooded habitats for the conservation of dead-wood Coleoptera. Coleopterist 8, 121–141.Google Scholar
& (2001). A Guide to Moth Traps and Their Use. Amateur Entomologist 24 (2nd edn). London, Amateur Entomologists' Society.Google Scholar
, , & (1981). An appraisal of pond net samples for biological monitoring of lotic macroinvertebrates. Water Research 15, 679–689.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
& (1971). The use of baits and preservatives in pitfall traps. Journal of the Australian Entomological Society 10, 253–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(1964). Pitfall trapping as a method for studying populations of Carabidae. Journal of Animal Ecology 33, 301–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hammond, P. M. (1990). Insect abundance and diversity in the Dumoga-Bone National Park, North Sulawesi, with special reference to the beetle fauna of lowland rainforest in the Toraut region. In Insects and the Rainforests of South-East Asia, ed. and . London, Royal Entomological Society, pp. 197–254.Google Scholar
& , H. G. (1980). Detrended correspondence analysis: an improved ordination technique. Vegetatio 42, 47–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(1993). A new method for collecting quantitative samples of insects associated with decaying wood or wood fungi. Entomologica Fennica 29, 21–23.Google Scholar
Lott, D. A. & Eyre, M. D. (1996). Invertebrate sampling methods. In Environmental Monitoring, Surveillance and Conservation Using Invertebrates, ed. . Newcastle upon Tyne, EMS Publications.Google Scholar
(1975). Some factors influencing the efficiency of pitfall traps. Oecologia 19, 345–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Luff, M. L. (1986). Aggregation of some Carabidae in pitfall traps. In Carabid Beetles: Their Adaptation and Dynamics, ed. , , & . Stuttgart, Gustav Fischer.Google Scholar
& (1988). Invertebrate communities in Western Australian eucalypts: a comparison of branch clipping and chemical knock-down procedures. Australian Journal of Ecology 13, 269–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(1997). Expedition Field Techniques. Insects and Other Terrestrial Arthropods. London, Expedition Advisory Centre, Royal Geographical Society.Google Scholar
& (1990). Guidelines for monitoring dragonfly populations. Journal of the British Dragonfly Society 6(2), 21–23.Google Scholar
(2000). The effects of structure and its dynamics on the ecology and conservation of arthropods in British grasslands. Biological Conservation 95, 129–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(1985). New Jersey mechanical trap for mosquito surveys. Journal of the American Mosquito Control Association 1, 411–418.Google ScholarPubMed
(1992). Experience with an emergence trap for insects breeding in dead wood. British Journal of Entomology and Natural History 5, 17–20.Google Scholar
(1977). A method for assessing changes in the abundance of butterflies. Biological Conservation 12, 115–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(1979). A national scheme for monitoring the abundance of butterflies: the first three years. British Entomological and Natural History Society, Proceedings and Transactions 12, 77–90.Google Scholar
(1988). Temperature, rainfall and butterfly numbers. Journal of Applied Ecology 25, 819–828.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
& (1993). Monitoring Butterflies for Ecology and Conservation. London, Chapman and Hall.Google Scholar
(1960). Earthworm population studies: a comparison of sampling methods. Nature 187, 257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(1975). Influence of trap screen age on collections of tabanids in Malaise traps. Mosquito News 35, 538–539.Google Scholar
(1988). Ecological Methods, with Particular Reference to the Study of Insect Populations, 2nd edn. London, Methuen.Google Scholar
, & (2003). Stability and change over 67 years – the community of Heteroptera as caught in a light trap at Rothamstead, UK. European Journal of Entomology 100, 557–561.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
& (1995). A new inexpensive suction apparatus for sampling arthropods in grassland. Ecological Entomology 20, 98–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(1983). A quick method for estimating butterfly numbers during surveys. Biological Conservation 27, 195–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
& (1982). A quick method for estimating larval populations of Melitaea cinxia during surveys. Biological Conservation 22, 315–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
& (1992). Limitations to the use of pitfall traps in ecological studies exemplified by a study of spiders in a field of winter-wheat. Journal of Applied Ecology 29, 485–491.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(1962). Design for a Malaise trap. Proceedings of the Entomological Society of Washington 64, 253–262.Google Scholar
(1990). Assessment of conservation values: the use of water traps to assess the arthropod communities of heather moorland. Biological Conservation 53, 191–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(1980). A comparison of the Heath and Robinson M. V. moth traps. Entomologists' Record and Journal of Variation 92, 283–289.Google Scholar
, , & (1997). Impact of forest management on insect abundance and damage in a lowland tropical forest in southern Cameroon. Journal of Applied Ecology 34, 985–998.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
& (2002). The influence of substrate on the functional response of an avian granivore and its implications for farmland bird conservation. Oecologia 130, 637–644.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
& (1992). A study of the efficacy of a new inexpensive type of suction apparatus in quantitive sampling of grassland invertebrate populations. British Ecological Society Bulletin 23, 116–120.Google Scholar
, & (2003). Arthropods in epiphytes: a diversity component that is not effectively sampled by canopy fogging. Biodiversity and Conservation 12, 731–741.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 10
- Cited by