Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T19:03:21.681Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A remote sensing method for the estimation of light-trap efficiency

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 July 2009

W. J. McGeachie
W. J. McGeachie
Affiliation:
Ecological Physics Research Group, Cranfield Institute of Technology, Cranfield, Bedford, MK43 OAL, UK
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A description is given of the use of a video camera to estimate light-trap efficiency in the field. This camera relies on the extra light sensitivity provided by the Newvicon detector tube to enable insect track discrimination. Recorded insect flight tracks were classified into three distinct categories, new arrivals, passers by and local flights, the numbers of which were compared to the moth catch in a Robinson mercury vapour light-trap. Calculations of efficiency were made using two methods, the best-estimate efficiency, obtained by comparing the new-arrival tracks to the light-trap catch, and the worst-estimate efficiency, obtained by comparing new-arrival tracks plus passer-by tracks to the light-trap catch. Preliminary results indicate that efficiency varies with windspeed but with a maximum of 39%, obtained in virtually calm conditions, suggesting that some aspect of moth behaviour limits trapping efficiency. It is suggested that the speed of migration of screening pigment from the dark-adapted state to the light-adapted state in superposition eyes may have a bearing on the catching mechanism of a light-trap.

Type
Original Article
Information
Bulletin of Entomological Research , Volume 78 , Issue 3 , September 1988 , pp. 379 - 385
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1988

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

Baker, R. R. & Sadovy, Y. (1978). The distance and nature of the light-trap response of moths.—Nature, Lond. 276, 818–821.Google Scholar
Betts, E. (1976). Forecasting infestations of tropical migrant pests; the desert locust and the African armyworm.—pp. 113–134 in Rainey, R. C. (Ed.). Insect flight.—287 pp. Oxford, Blackwell Scientific (Symp. R. Ent. Soc. Lond. no. 7).Google Scholar
Brown, E. S., Betts, E. & Rainey, R. C. (1969). Seasonal changes in distribution of the African armyworm, Spodoptera exempta (Wlk.) (Lep., Noctuidae), with special reference to Eastern Africa.—Bull. ent. Res. 58, 661–728.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bucher, G. E. & Bracken, G. K. (1979). The bertha armyworm, Mamestra configurata (Lepidoptera:Noctuidae). An estimate of light and pheromone trap efficiency based on captures of newly emerged moths.—Can. Ent. 111, 977–984.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buddenbrock, W. von (1937). Gundriss der vergleichenden Physiologie.—Berlin, Oldenbourg.Google Scholar
Gaydecki, P. A. (1984). A quantification of the behavioural dynamics of certain Lepidoptera in response to light.—157 pp. Ph.D. thesis, Cranfield Inst. Technol., Bedford.Google Scholar
Hamdorf, K. & Hoglund, G. (1981). Light induced retinal screening pigment migration independent of visual cell activity.—J. Comp. Physiol. 143, 305–309.Google Scholar
Hartstack, A. W. Jr., Hollingsworth, J. P. & Lindquist, D. A. (1968). A technique for measuring trapping efficiency of electric insect traps.—J. econ. Ent. 61, 546–552.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis, T. & MaCaulay, E. D. M. (1976). Design and elevation of sex-attractant traps for pea moth, Cydia nigricana (Steph.) and the effect of plume shape on catches.—Ecol. Entomol. 1, 175–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mazokhin-Porshnyakov, G. A. (1960). Why insects fly toward the light.—Ent. Obozr. 39, 52–58.Google Scholar
McGeachie, W. J. (1987). The effects of air temperature, wind vectors and nocturnal illumination on the behaviour of moths at mercury-vapour light-traps.—170 pp. Ph.D. thesis, Cranfield Inst. Technol., Bedford.Google Scholar
Murlis, J. & Bettany, B. W. (1977). Night flight towards a sex pheromone source by male Spodoptera littoralis (Boisd.) (Lepidoptera, Noctuidae).—Nature, Lond. 268, 433–435.Google Scholar
Robinson, H. S. & Robinson, P. J. M. (1950). Some notes on the observed behaviour of Lepidoptera in flight in the vicinity of light-sources together with a description of a light-trap designed to take entomological samples.—Entomologist's Gaz. 1, 3–15.Google Scholar
Roeder, K. D. (1965). Moths and ultrasound.—Scient. Am. 212, 94–102.Google Scholar
Schaefer, G. W. & Bent, G. A. (1984). An infra-red remote sensing system for the active detection and automatic determination of insect flight trajectories (IRADIT).—Bull. ent. Res. 74, 261–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taylor, L. R. & Brown, E. S. (1972). Effects of light-trap design and illumination on samples of moths in the Kenya highlands.—Bull. ent. Res. 62, 91–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taylor, L. R. & French, R. A. (1974). Effects of light-trap design and illumination on samples of moths in an English woodland.—Bull. ent. Res. 63, 583–594.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taylor, L. R., French, R. A., Woiwod, I. P., Dupuch, M. J. & Nicklen, J. (1981). Synoptic monitoring for migrant insect pests in Great Britain and Western Europe. I. Establishing expected values for species content, population stability and phenology of aphids and moths.—Rep. Rothamsted exp. Stn 1980 (2), 41–104.Google Scholar
Verheijen, F. J. (1958). The mechanism of the trapping effect of artificial light sources upon animals.—Archs néerl. Zool. 13, 1–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, C. B. (1948). The Rothamsted light trap.—Proc. R. ent. Soc. Lond. (A) 23, 80–85.Google Scholar