Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T04:52:16.618Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

EVALUATION OF FIVE TRAP DESIGNS FOR SAMPLING INSECTS ASSOCIATED WITH SEVERED PINES1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 May 2012

E. G. Younan  and
F. P. Hain
E. G. Younan
Affiliation:
Department of Entomology, North Carolina State University, Raleigh 27650
F. P. Hain
Affiliation:
Department of Entomology, North Carolina State University, Raleigh 27650
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Five trap designs were evaluated for sampling the insect complex attracted to severed shortleaf (Pinus echinata Mill.), Virginia (P. virginiana Mill.), and loblolly (P. taeda L.) pines. The baffled flight trap was superior for capturing Coleoptera. Plexiglas®, saran screen, and 4-directional Plexiglas traps were most efficient in trapping Diptera and Hymenoptera. The results indicate that the choice of any particular trap depends on the group of insects to be sampled.

Résumé

Cinq formes de pièges ont été testées pour l'échantillonnage du complexe des insectes attirés sur les espèces de pins Pinus echinata Mill., P. virginiana Mill., et P. taeda L. après l'abattage. Le piège à battants s'est avéré supérieur pour la capture des Coléoptères. Les pièges-écrans en Plexiglas® ou en saran, et le piège 4-directions en Plexiglas se sont avérés les plus efficaces pour la capture des Diptères et des Hyménoptères. Les résultats indiquent que le choix d'un piège doit être basé sur le groupe d'insectes à échantillonner.

Type
Articles
Information
The Canadian Entomologist , Volume 114 , Issue 9 , September 1982 , pp. 789 - 796
Copyright
Copyright © Entomological Society of Canada 1982

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

Borror, D. J. and DeLong, D. M.. 1971. An Introduction to the Study of Insects. Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, New York. 812 pp.Google Scholar
Frost, S. W. 1958. Insects captured in light traps with and without baffles. Can. Ent. 90: 566–567.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heikkenen, H. J. 1976. A technique for initiating the death of standing pine tree. Va. J. Sci. 27: 172.Google Scholar
Hines, J. W. and Heikkenen, H. J.. 1977. Beetles attracted to severed Virginia pine (Pinus virginiana Mill.). Environ. Ent. 6: 123–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holbrook, R. F., Beroza, M., and Burgess, E. D.. 1960. Gypsy moth (Porthetria dispar) detection with the natural female sex lure. J. econ. Ent. 53: 751–756.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Juillet, J. A. 1963. A comparison of four types of traps used for capturing flying insects. Can. J. Zool. 41: 219–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reardon, R., Metterhouse, W., and Balaam, R.. 1977. Traps for collecting adult parasites of the gypsy moth. J. econ. Ent. 70: 247–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roberts, R. H. 1972. The effectiveness of several types of Malaise traps for the collection of Tabanidae and Culicidae. Mosquito News 32: 542–547.Google Scholar
Snedecor, G. W. and Cochran, W. G.. 1973. Statistical Methods. Iowa State University Press, Ames. 593 pp.Google Scholar
Stephen, F. M. and Dahlsten, D. L.. 1976. The arrival sequence of the arthropod complex following attack by Dendroctonus brevicomis (Coleoptera: Scolytidae) in ponderosa pine. Can. Ent. 108: 283–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar