![]() (eds.): Arthropod natural enemies in arable land I. 9, 245–250.ĭinter, A., 1995: Estimation of epigeic spider population density using an intensive D-vac sampling technique and comparison with pitfall trap catches in winter wheat. Maelfait, J.-R., 1986: Pitfall trapping within enclosures: a method tor estimating the relationship between the abundances of coexisting carabid beetles (Coleoptera: Carabidae). Individuals, Populations and Communities. Pfadenhauer, J., 1991: Forschungsverbund Agrarökosysteme München (FAM) - Er- fassung, Prognose und Bewertung nutzungsbedingter Verän- derungen in Agrarökosystemen und deren Umwelt. Rzehak, H., 1988: Abundanz und Aktivitätsdichte epigäischer Raubarthropoden auf Ackerflächen - ein Vergleich. A., 1979: Catches in pitfall traps in relation to mean densities of carabid beetles. FAM-Bericht 9 (ISSN 0941- 892X), 183–201.Īndersen, J., 1995: A comparison of pitfall trapping and quadrate sampling of Carabidae (Coleoptera) on river banks. ![]() Pfadenhauer, J., 1996: Beitrag zur Minimierung der Belastung von Wässern und der Atmosphäre mit C- und N-Verbindungen. However, I suggest a combination of both pitfall traps and standardised area samples, because the two approaches possibly provide information of different qualities equally important for the evaluation of epigeal predator species, namely searching activity and population density.Īdis, J., 1979: Problems of interpreting arthropod sampling with pitfall traps. Therefore, in most cases absolute density estimates should be preferred for the study of epigeal invertebrates in arable land. Thus numbers caught in pitfall traps cannot be considered as reliable indices of “real” abundance nor do they reflect the relative abundance within a given predator community correctly. In sum, the relationship between pitfall trap catches and actual population densities appeared to be either absent, weak or highly variable among taxa, habitat and time of the season. Body size seemed to be the main factor in determining the catch, the relatively larger species being more frequently caught by pitfall traps. Pitfalls recovered higher numbers of animals and species, and species composition differed significantly between pitfalls and photoeclectors, in the field as well as in the set-aside. This is probably caused by the higher vegetation diversity and complexity of the set-aside land which additionally influenced the catches. Numbers collected by pitfalls did represent actual population densities better in the field than in the set-aside. The overestimation of Carabidae and Lycosidae by pitfalls had its maximum in spring and summer. In general, abundance of Carabidae and Lycosidae were overestimated by pitfalls, while Staphylinidae and Linyphiidae were underestimated, and beetle larvae showed no obvious trend. In an agroecosystem, catches of epigeal invertebrate predators obtained by pitfall traps were compared to absolute population densities estimated by ground photoeclectors in two different habitats, a field and an adjacent set-aside land.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |