Miller Daniel R, Duerr Donald A
USDA Forest Service, Southern Research Station, 320 Green Street, Athens, GA 30602, USA.
J Econ Entomol. 2008 Feb;101(1):107-13. doi: 10.1603/0022-0493(2008)101[107:coabci]2.0.co;2.
We compared the effectiveness of a dry collection cup (with an insecticide killing strip) to a wet collection cup (containing antifreeze) for use with Lindgren multiple-funnel traps in catching several common species of bark and wood-boring beetles, and their associates in southern pine forests. All traps were baited with either the binary combination of ethanol and (-)-alpha-pinene or the quaternary combination of (+/-)-ipsenol, (+/-)-ipsdienol, ethanol, and (-)-alpha-pinene. We found that cup treatment had little, if any, effect on catches of Ips avulsus (Eichhoff) and I. grandicollis (Eichhoff) (Coleoptera: Scolytidae), Alaus myops (F.) (Elateridae), Chalcophora Solier species (Buprestidae), Temnochila virescens (F.) (Trogositidae), and Lasconotus Erichson species (Colydiidae). In contrast, catches of the following species were significantly less (by 40-97%) in traps with dry cups than in traps with wet cups: Hylobius pales Herbst and Pachylobius picivorus LeConte (Curculionidae); Buprestis lineata F. (Buprestidae); Acanthocinus obsoletus (Olivier), Arhopalus rusticus nubilus (LeConte), Monochamus titillator (F.) and Xylotrechus sagittatus sagittatus (Cerambycidae); Hylastes porculus Erichson and Xyleborinus saxeseni (Ratzeburg) (Scolytidae); and Thanasimus dubius (F.) (Cleridae). The same was true in at least one experiment for the following species: Dendroctonus terebrans (Olivier), Hylastes salebrosus Eichhoff, Hylastes tenuis Eichhoff, and Xylosandrus crassiusculus (Motschulsky) (Scolytidae). We conclude that cup treatment can have a significant impact on catches of some arboreal beetles in baited multiple-funnel traps. Anyone using multiple-funnel traps to capture arboreal beetles should evaluate the potential impacts arising from their choice of collection cup treatment to their trapping objectives and expectations. The issue of cup treatment may be particular important at low population levels when maximum trap efficiency is required such as in the detection of exotic insects at ports-of-entry and within quarantine and containment zones.
我们比较了干燥收集杯(配有杀虫剂杀虫带)和湿润收集杯(装有防冻液)与林格伦多漏斗诱捕器配合使用时,在捕获南部松树林中几种常见的树皮甲虫、蛀木甲虫及其相关物种方面的效果。所有诱捕器均用乙醇和(-)-α-蒎烯的二元组合或(±)-异松油烯、(±)-异二氢松油烯、乙醇和(-)-α-蒎烯的四元组合进行诱饵处理。我们发现,收集杯处理对撕皮小蠹(Eichhoff)、大齿小蠹(Eichhoff)(鞘翅目:小蠹科)、大眼锯角叩甲(F.)(叩甲科)、索氏吉丁虫属(吉丁甲科)、绿胸阎甲(F.)(阎甲科)和拉斯科诺图斯属(长蠹科)的捕获量几乎没有影响(如果有影响的话)。相比之下,在使用干燥收集杯的诱捕器中,以下物种的捕获量比使用湿润收集杯的诱捕器显著减少(减少40%-97%):苍白长小蠹(Herbst)和食果厚小蠹(LeConte)(象甲科);细纹吉丁(F.)(吉丁甲科);废弃刺胫小蠹(Olivier)、锈色云杉八齿小蠹(LeConte)、黄纹木蠹象(F.)和箭纹花天牛(Cerambycidae);多孔材小蠹(Erichson)和云杉大小蠹(Ratzeburg)(小蠹科);以及疑山郭公虫(F.)(郭公甲科)。在至少一项实验中,以下物种的情况也是如此:红脂大小蠹(Olivier)、粗糙材小蠹(Eichhoff)、细材小蠹(Eichhoff)和粗刻材小蠹(Motschulsky)(小蠹科)。我们得出结论,收集杯处理对诱饵多漏斗诱捕器中某些树栖甲虫的捕获量可能有显著影响。任何使用多漏斗诱捕器捕获树栖甲虫的人都应评估其选择的收集杯处理方式对其诱捕目标和期望可能产生的影响。在需要最大诱捕效率的低虫口密度情况下,如在入境口岸以及检疫和隔离区内检测外来昆虫时,收集杯处理问题可能尤为重要。