United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Research Station, 320 Green Street, Athens, GA 30602, USA.
J Econ Entomol. 2011 Dec;104(6):1934-41. doi: 10.1603/ec11166.
In 2004, we evaluated the relative performance of 8-unit Lindgren multiple-funnel (funnel), Intercept panel (panel), and Colossus pipe (pipe) traps, baited with ethanol and ac-pinene lures, in catching saproxylic beetles (Coleoptera) in pine stands in northern Florida and western South Carolina. Panel traps were as good as, if not better than, funnel and pipe traps for catching Cerambycidae. In particular, more Monochamus titillator (F.) were captured in panel traps than in pipe and funnel traps. Of three species of Buprestidae captured in our study, most Buprestis lineata F. were caught in panel traps, whereas most Acmaeodera tubulus (F.) were caught in funnel traps. Catches of Chalcophora virginiensis Drury and the root-feeding weevils Hylobius pales Herbst an dPachylobius picivorus LeConte (Curculionidae) were unaffected by trap type. Among bark beetles (Curculionidae: Scolytinae), catches of Ips grandicollis (Eichhoff) were unaffected by trap type, whereas most Dendroctonus terebrans (Olivier) were caught in panel traps, most Hylastes salebrosus Eichhoff were caught in panel and pipe traps, and most Hylastes tenuis Eichhoff were caught in funnel traps. Among ambrosia beetles (Curculionidae: Scolytinae), panel traps caught the most Xyleborinus saxesenii (Ratzeburg), whereas pipe traps caught the most Xyleborus Eichhoff spp. More Xylosandrus crassiusculus (Motschulsky) and Dryoxylon onoharaensis (Murayama) were caught in panel and funnel traps than in pipe traps. Among bark beetle predators, more Platysoma Leach spp. (Histeridae) were caught in pipe and panel traps than in funnel traps, whereas most Lasconotus Erichson spp. (Zopheridae) were caught in funnel traps. Variation among trap performance for various species suggests that managers should consider more than one type of trap in their detection programs.
2004 年，我们评估了 8 单元 Lindgren 多漏斗（漏斗）、Interceptor 面板（面板）和 Colossus 管（管）陷阱在北佛罗里达州和南卡罗来纳州西部的松树林中诱捕木质甲虫（鞘翅目）的相对性能，这些陷阱用乙醇和 ac-蒎烯诱饵诱捕。对于捕获 Cerambycidae，面板陷阱与漏斗和管陷阱一样好，如果不是更好的话。特别是，在面板陷阱中捕获的 Monochamus titillator（F.）比在管和漏斗陷阱中捕获的更多。在我们的研究中捕获的三种鳃金龟科中，大多数 Buprestis lineata F. 是在面板陷阱中捕获的，而大多数 Acmaeodera tubulus（F.）是在漏斗陷阱中捕获的。Chalcophora virginiensis Drury 和根食性象甲 Hylobius pales Herbst an dPachylobius picivorus LeConte（象甲科）的捕获不受陷阱类型的影响。在树皮甲虫（象甲科：Scolytinae）中，Ips grandicollis（Eichhoff）的捕获不受陷阱类型的影响，而大多数 Dendroctonus terebrans（Olivier）是在面板陷阱中捕获的，大多数 Hylastes salebrosus Eichhoff 是在面板和管陷阱中捕获的，而大多数 Hylastes tenuis Eichhoff 是在漏斗陷阱中捕获的。在粉状甲虫（象甲科：Scolytinae）中，面板陷阱捕获的 Xyleborinus saxesenii（Ratzeburg）最多，而管陷阱捕获的 Xyleborus Eichhoff spp. 最多。在面板和漏斗陷阱中捕获的 Xylosandrus crassiusculus（Motschulsky）和 Dryoxylon onoharaensis（Murayama）比在管陷阱中多。在树皮甲虫捕食者中，在管和面板陷阱中捕获的 Platysoma Leach spp.（Histeridae）多于在漏斗陷阱中捕获的，而大多数 Lasconotus Erichson spp.（Zopheridae）是在漏斗陷阱中捕获的。各种物种的陷阱性能差异表明，管理者在其检测计划中应考虑使用多种类型的陷阱。
