Effectiveness of Malaise trap and sweep net sampling in sawfly research (Hymenoptera: Symphyta)

IF 1.4 4区 生物学 Q3 BIOLOGY
{"title":"Effectiveness of Malaise trap and sweep net sampling in sawfly research (Hymenoptera: Symphyta)","authors":"","doi":"10.1007/s11756-024-01651-3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<h3>Abstract</h3> <p>Malaise traps and sweep nets are commonly used to study sawfly faunas, seasonality and communities. Here we analyse a large dataset obtained with these methods in Slovakia and Hungary over the last two and a half decades. The dataset included collections from twenty-one sites, each covering the entire growing season, eleven of which were obtained with the Malaise trap and ten with the sweep net. We conclude that both methods are suitable for faunistic studies of sawflies (Hymenoptera, Symphyta), although they may lead to certain biased results for some Symphyta groups. Special attention should be paid to Siricidae, Orussidae, Xiphidriidae and Cimbicidae, which were only weakly recorded with both methods. Argidae, Blennocampinae, Dolerinae and Tenthredininae were underrepresented in the Malaise trap samples and Allantinae in the sweep net samples. Both methods gave equally good results in measuring species richness in an one-year study. Ideally, they should be used together as they complement each other well. The net method has a great advantage in determining the exact population density. In contrast, the Malaise trap collections were often heavily dominated by only a few species, with males being preferentially trapped. Use of Malasie trap should be preferred for the study of seasonal flight activity.</p>","PeriodicalId":8978,"journal":{"name":"Biologia","volume":"29 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Biologia","FirstCategoryId":"99","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11756-024-01651-3","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"生物学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"BIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Malaise traps and sweep nets are commonly used to study sawfly faunas, seasonality and communities. Here we analyse a large dataset obtained with these methods in Slovakia and Hungary over the last two and a half decades. The dataset included collections from twenty-one sites, each covering the entire growing season, eleven of which were obtained with the Malaise trap and ten with the sweep net. We conclude that both methods are suitable for faunistic studies of sawflies (Hymenoptera, Symphyta), although they may lead to certain biased results for some Symphyta groups. Special attention should be paid to Siricidae, Orussidae, Xiphidriidae and Cimbicidae, which were only weakly recorded with both methods. Argidae, Blennocampinae, Dolerinae and Tenthredininae were underrepresented in the Malaise trap samples and Allantinae in the sweep net samples. Both methods gave equally good results in measuring species richness in an one-year study. Ideally, they should be used together as they complement each other well. The net method has a great advantage in determining the exact population density. In contrast, the Malaise trap collections were often heavily dominated by only a few species, with males being preferentially trapped. Use of Malasie trap should be preferred for the study of seasonal flight activity.

在锯螨研究(膜翅目:蚋)中使用马拉伊斯诱捕器和扫网取样的有效性
摘要 Malaise 诱捕器和扫网通常用于研究锯蝇动物群落、季节性和群落。在此,我们分析了过去二十五年中在斯洛伐克和匈牙利使用这些方法获得的大量数据集。数据集包括从 21 个地点采集的数据,每个地点都覆盖了整个生长季节,其中 11 个地点使用马拉伊斯诱捕器,10 个地点使用扫网。我们的结论是,这两种方法都适用于锯蝇(膜翅目,Symphyta)的动物学研究,尽管它们可能会导致某些 Symphyta 类群的研究结果出现偏差。应特别注意鞘蜓科 (Siricidae)、眶蜓科 (Orussidae)、虹蜓科 (Xiphidriidae) 和蜓科 (Cimbicidae),这两种方法对它们的记录都很薄弱。在马来氏诱捕器样本中,Argidae、Blennocampinae、Dolerinae 和 Tenthredininae 所占比例较低,而在扫网样本中,Allantinae 所占比例较高。在为期一年的研究中,两种方法在测量物种丰富度方面都取得了同样好的结果。理想情况下,这两种方法应该同时使用,因为它们可以很好地互补。撒网法在确定准确的种群密度方面具有很大优势。与此相反,马拉西陷阱收集到的物种往往只占少数几个物种,而且雄性物种更容易被捕获。在研究季节性飞行活动时,应首选马拉西陷阱。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Biologia
Biologia 生物-生物学
CiteScore
3.30
自引率
6.70%
发文量
290
审稿时长
6 months
期刊介绍: Established in 1946, Biologia publishes high-quality research papers in the fields of microbial, plant and animal sciences. Microbial sciences papers span all aspects of Bacteria, Archaea and microbial Eucarya including biochemistry, cellular and molecular biology, genomics, proteomics and bioinformatics. Plant sciences topics include fundamental research in taxonomy, geobotany, genetics and all fields of experimental botany including cellular, whole-plant and community physiology. Zoology coverage includes animal systematics and taxonomy, morphology, ecology and physiology from cellular to molecular level.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信