捕集器类型影响南松林树皮甲虫和蛀木甲虫的捕获量

IF 0.7 4区 农林科学 Q4 ENTOMOLOGY
D.R. Miller, C. Crowe
{"title":"捕集器类型影响南松林树皮甲虫和蛀木甲虫的捕获量","authors":"D.R. Miller, C. Crowe","doi":"10.18474/JES21-28","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract In 2012, we tested the relative efficacy of four commercial types of insect traps (panel; standard multiple-funnel; modified multiple-funnel; and sea, land, and air Malaise [SLAM]) for capturing bark and woodboring beetles (Coleoptera) in a pine stand in northcentral Georgia. All traps were baited with ethanol, α-pinene, ipsenol, and ipsdienol lures. The SLAM trap outperformed the panel trap for diversity and abundance of Cerambycidae. Mean catches of Asemum striatum (L.) in SLAM traps were greater than those in all other traps. SLAM traps caught more Acanthocinus obsoletus (LeConte) and Xylotrechus sagittatus (Germar) than standard multiple-funnel funnel and panel traps. The greatest numbers of Monochamus titillator (F.) were in SLAM and modified multiple-funnel traps. In contrast, SLAM traps were inferior to all other trap types in trapping bark beetles (Curculionidae: Scolytinae). More Dendroctonus terebrans (Olivier), Hylastes porculus Erichson, and Hylastes salebrosus Eichhoff were captured in panel traps than the other types of traps. Catches of Ips avulsus (Eichhoff), Ips calligraphus (Germar), Orthotomicus caelatus (Eichhoff), and Pityophthorus spp. were the same in panel, standard multiple-funnel, and modified multiple-funnel traps. Our data suggest that combinations of trap types should be considered in maximizing the effectiveness of detection programs for pine bark and woodboring beetles.","PeriodicalId":15765,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Entomological Science","volume":"57 1","pages":"145 - 155"},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2022-03-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Trap Type Affects Catches of Bark and Woodboring Beetles in a Southern Pine Stand\",\"authors\":\"D.R. Miller, C. Crowe\",\"doi\":\"10.18474/JES21-28\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract In 2012, we tested the relative efficacy of four commercial types of insect traps (panel; standard multiple-funnel; modified multiple-funnel; and sea, land, and air Malaise [SLAM]) for capturing bark and woodboring beetles (Coleoptera) in a pine stand in northcentral Georgia. All traps were baited with ethanol, α-pinene, ipsenol, and ipsdienol lures. The SLAM trap outperformed the panel trap for diversity and abundance of Cerambycidae. Mean catches of Asemum striatum (L.) in SLAM traps were greater than those in all other traps. SLAM traps caught more Acanthocinus obsoletus (LeConte) and Xylotrechus sagittatus (Germar) than standard multiple-funnel funnel and panel traps. The greatest numbers of Monochamus titillator (F.) were in SLAM and modified multiple-funnel traps. In contrast, SLAM traps were inferior to all other trap types in trapping bark beetles (Curculionidae: Scolytinae). More Dendroctonus terebrans (Olivier), Hylastes porculus Erichson, and Hylastes salebrosus Eichhoff were captured in panel traps than the other types of traps. Catches of Ips avulsus (Eichhoff), Ips calligraphus (Germar), Orthotomicus caelatus (Eichhoff), and Pityophthorus spp. were the same in panel, standard multiple-funnel, and modified multiple-funnel traps. Our data suggest that combinations of trap types should be considered in maximizing the effectiveness of detection programs for pine bark and woodboring beetles.\",\"PeriodicalId\":15765,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Entomological Science\",\"volume\":\"57 1\",\"pages\":\"145 - 155\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-03-29\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Entomological Science\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"97\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.18474/JES21-28\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"农林科学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"ENTOMOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Entomological Science","FirstCategoryId":"97","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.18474/JES21-28","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"ENTOMOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

2012年,我们对4种商业捕虫器(面板;标准multiple-funnel;修改multiple-funnel;以及海、陆、空萎靡[SLAM]),用于捕获佐治亚州中北部松树林中的树皮和蛀木甲虫(鞘翅目)。诱捕器采用乙醇、α-蒎烯、ipsenol和ipsdienol诱饵。SLAM诱捕法在天牛科的多样性和丰度上优于面板诱捕法。SLAM诱捕器对纹状体Asemum striatum (L.)的平均捕获量大于其他诱捕器。SLAM捕集器比标准的多漏斗漏斗捕集器和面板捕集器捕获更多的棘尾虫(LeConte)和矢状木蝇(Xylotrechus sagittatus)。在SLAM和改良的多漏斗诱捕器中,刺头单鼠的数量最多。SLAM诱捕器对树皮甲虫的诱捕效果优于其他诱捕器。板式捕集器捕获的斑齿石齿、斑齿石齿和棘齿石齿石齿的数量多于其他类型的捕集器。在平板诱捕器、标准多漏斗诱捕器和改良多漏斗诱捕器中,avulsus (Eichhoff)、ipsdoohus(德国)、Orthotomicus caelatus (Eichhoff)和Pityophthorus的捕获量相同。我们的数据表明,在最大限度地提高松皮和蛀木甲虫检测程序的有效性时,应考虑陷阱类型的组合。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Trap Type Affects Catches of Bark and Woodboring Beetles in a Southern Pine Stand
Abstract In 2012, we tested the relative efficacy of four commercial types of insect traps (panel; standard multiple-funnel; modified multiple-funnel; and sea, land, and air Malaise [SLAM]) for capturing bark and woodboring beetles (Coleoptera) in a pine stand in northcentral Georgia. All traps were baited with ethanol, α-pinene, ipsenol, and ipsdienol lures. The SLAM trap outperformed the panel trap for diversity and abundance of Cerambycidae. Mean catches of Asemum striatum (L.) in SLAM traps were greater than those in all other traps. SLAM traps caught more Acanthocinus obsoletus (LeConte) and Xylotrechus sagittatus (Germar) than standard multiple-funnel funnel and panel traps. The greatest numbers of Monochamus titillator (F.) were in SLAM and modified multiple-funnel traps. In contrast, SLAM traps were inferior to all other trap types in trapping bark beetles (Curculionidae: Scolytinae). More Dendroctonus terebrans (Olivier), Hylastes porculus Erichson, and Hylastes salebrosus Eichhoff were captured in panel traps than the other types of traps. Catches of Ips avulsus (Eichhoff), Ips calligraphus (Germar), Orthotomicus caelatus (Eichhoff), and Pityophthorus spp. were the same in panel, standard multiple-funnel, and modified multiple-funnel traps. Our data suggest that combinations of trap types should be considered in maximizing the effectiveness of detection programs for pine bark and woodboring beetles.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.20
自引率
11.10%
发文量
40
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Entomological Science (ISSN 0749-8004) is a peer-reviewed, scholarly journal that is published quarterly (January, April, July, and October) under the auspices of the Georgia Entomological Society in concert with Allen Press (Lawrence, Kansas). Manuscripts deemed acceptable for publication in the Journal report original research with insects and related arthropods or literature reviews offering foundations to innovative directions in entomological research
×
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