Next Article in Journal
The Contribution of Surrounding Margins in the Promotion of Natural Enemies in Mediterranean Apple Orchards
Previous Article in Journal
Mitochondrial Gene Sequence (COI) Reveals the Genetic Structure and Demographic History of Lymantria dispar (Lepidoptera: Erebidae: Lymantriinae) in and around China
Open AccessArticle

New Litter Trap Devices Outperform Pitfall Traps for Studying Arthropod Activity

1
Department of Functional and Evolutionary Ecology, Estación Experimental de Zonas Áridas, EEZA-CSIC, Carretera de Sacramento s/n, 04120 Almería, Spain
2
Cos d’Agents Rurals, Generalitat de Catalunya, 43870 Amposta, Spain
3
CIBIO/InBio Research Center in Biodiversity and Genetic Resources, 7000-651 Évora, Portugal
4
Research Unit of Biodiversity (UO/CSIC/PA), Oviedo University, 33600 Mieres, Spain
5
Ÿnsect, Rue Pierre Fontain 1, 91000 Évry, France; [email protected]
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Insects 2019, 10(5), 147; https://doi.org/10.3390/insects10050147
Received: 5 April 2019 / Revised: 15 May 2019 / Accepted: 17 May 2019 / Published: 23 May 2019
Soil fauna play a key role in nutrient cycling and decomposition, and in recent years, researchers have become more and more interested in this compartment of terrestrial ecosystems. In addition, soil fauna can act as ecosystem engineers by creating, modifying, and maintaining the habitat for other organisms. Ecologists usually utilize live catches in pitfalls traps as a standard method to study the activity of epigeic fauna in addition to relative abundance. Counts in pitfall traps can be used as estimates of relative activity to compare among experimental treatments. This requires taking independent estimates of abundance (e.g., by sifting soil litter, mark–recapture), which can then be used as covariates in linear models to compare the levels of fauna activity (trap catches) among treatments. However, many studies show that the use of pitfall traps is not the most adequate method to estimate soil fauna relative abundances, and these concerns may be extensible to estimating activity. Here, we present two new types of traps devised to study activity in litter fauna, and which we call “cul-de-sac” and “basket traps”, respectively. We experimentally show that, at least for litter dwellers, these new traps are more appropriate to estimate fauna activity than pitfall traps because: (1) pitfall traps contain 3.5× more moisture than the surrounding environment, potentially attracting animals towards them when environmental conditions are relatively dry; (2) cul-de-sac and basket traps catch ca. 4× more of both meso- and macrofauna than pitfall traps, suggesting that pitfall traps are underestimating activity; and (3) pitfall traps show a bias towards collecting 1.5× higher amounts of predators, which suggests that predation rates are higher within pitfall traps. We end with a protocol and recommendations for how to use these new traps in ecological experiments and surveys aiming at estimating soil arthropod activity. View Full-Text
Keywords: animal movement; dispersal; activity-density; abundance; activity; soil meso- and macrofauna; animal trapping animal movement; dispersal; activity-density; abundance; activity; soil meso- and macrofauna; animal trapping
Show Figures

Graphical abstract

MDPI and ACS Style

Ruiz-Lupión, D.; Pascual, J.; Melguizo-Ruiz, N.; Verdeny-Vilalta, O.; Moya-Laraño, J. New Litter Trap Devices Outperform Pitfall Traps for Studying Arthropod Activity. Insects 2019, 10, 147.

Show more citation formats Show less citations formats
Note that from the first issue of 2016, MDPI journals use article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Access Map by Country/Region

1
Back to TopTop