BioOne sees sustainable scholarly publishing as an inherently collaborative enterprise connecting authors, nonprofit publishers,academic institutions, research libraries, and research funders in the common goal of maximizing access to critical research.

A Modified PitfallTrap for Capturing Ground Beetles(Coleoptera: Carabidae)Author(s): Brygida Radawiec and Oleg AleksandrowiczSource: The Coleopterists Bulletin, 67(4):473-480. 2013.Published By: The Coleopterists SocietyDOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1649/0010-065X-67.4.473URL: http://www.bioone.org/doi/full/10.1649/0010-065X-67.4.473

BioOne (www.bioone.org) is a nonprofit, online aggregation of core research in thebiological, ecological, and environmental sciences. BioOne provides a sustainable onlineplatform for over 170 journals and books published by nonprofit societies, associations,museums, institutions, and presses.

Your use of this PDF, the BioOne Web site, and all posted and associated contentindicates your acceptance of BioOnes Terms of Use, available at www.bioone.org/page/terms_of_use.

Usage of BioOne content is strictly limited to personal, educational, and non-commercialuse. Commercial inquiries or rights and permissions requests should be directed to theindividual publisher as copyright holder.

A MODIFIED PITFALLTRAP FOR CAPTURING GROUND BEETLES(COLEOPTERA: CARABIDAE)

BRYGIDA RADAWIEC AND OLEG ALEKSANDROWICZPomeranian University in Supsk, Department of Zoology

22b Arciszewskiego, Supsk 76-200, POLANDbrygida.radawiec@apsl.edu.pl; oleg.aleksandrowicz@apsl.edu.pl

ABSTRACT

A modified pitfall trap study was carried out in winter wheat growing in Straszewo village (5410N, 1721E),Poland. The objective of this study was to compare the functional effectiveness of traditional pitfall traps with thosethat have a plastic funnel. Ten traps of each kind were used. Specimens were collected from May to July 2006. Cumu-latively, 1,866 specimens belonging to 38 ground beetle species (Coleoptera: Carabidae) were trapped. In traditionalpitfall traps, 31 species and 1,115 specimens were captured, whereas in modified traps 33 species and 751 specimenswere collected. The average catch efficiency of traditional traps (1.50.7 specimens per trap per 24 hours) was sig-nificantly higher compared to that of modified traps (1.00.3 specimens per trap per 24 hours). Considering the habitatand trophic and hygro-preference aspects, the collection of particular groups of specimens, both quantitatively andqualitatively, was similar for both trap variants. The average body size of ground beetles and mean individual biomassvalues (63.5 mg for beetles in traditional traps compared to 57.6 mg for beetles in modified traps) were not signifi-cantly different. However, significant differences were detected for total biomass (7,100 mg in traditional traps versus4,300 mg in modified traps). Nineteen lizards (Lacerta sp.) were caught in the open traps throughout the study period,while only five specimens were taken in the funneled traps.

Key Words: ecology, methodology, assemblages, agriculture fauna, trappability

The use of pitfall (Barbers) traps is the mostpopular method of collecting epigeic arthropodsand other invertebrate animals (Spence andNiemel 1994; Mommertz et al. 1996; Zalewski1999). This technique is easy to use, convenient,and inexpensive. It has been applied in varioustypes of ecological, behavioral, forest, and agricul-tural studies (Benest 1989; Spence and Niemiel1994; Raworth and Man-Young Choi 2001). Sucha wide use of the traps has led to their numerousmodifications and improvements. This causedmany methodological problems, with the questionof comparability of results being the most impor-tant (Spence and Niemiel 1994). Many studieshave shown the influence of various factors, e.g.,shape, size, construction, material, and color, onthe efficacy and functioning of the traps (Adis1979; Spence and Niemiel 1994; Sunderlandet al. 1995; Zalewski 1999; Hbert et al. 2000;Buchholz et al. 2010). Spence and Niemiel (1994),Mommertz et al. (1996), and Zalewski (1999) havealso examined the efficacy of traps equippedwith accessories, e.g., shields protecting themagainst sinking or obstruction, or fences providinghigher selectivity.According to Buchholz et al. (2010), a pitfall

trap is non-selective and usually catches manyspecies of invertebrate and vertebrate animalsnot included in the main study. Taking the ethicalaspect of research into account, we postulate such

a selection of traps that would maximally reducethe mortality of accidentally caught animals. Afunnel closing the opening of the trap is anelement that can reduce by-catch. We did not findany information on the influence of funnel-equipped traps on the catch of Carabidae. There-fore, the aim of this paper is to present the resultsof catching carabids with traditional and modified(a funnel reducing the diameter of the opening)traps and to analyze the influence of the funnelon the by-catch of lizards (Lacerta sp.).

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Considering the higher trappability of carabidsin an open area as compared with wooded orwaterlogged habitats (Thiele 1977; Handke 1995;Matveev 1990; Huruk 2006), this study wascarried out in rural landscape typical of north-ern Poland (Pomerania). This region is alsopoorly forested, with podsol of gravel and loose,faintly clayey sand as the main soil type. Cli-matic conditions determine the types of culti-vated crops, mainly rye, wheat, and potatoes.The study site was in a winter wheat field (1-haarea) in the village of Straszewo (5410N, 1721E)in the Pomerania Voivodeship (northern Poland).The locality was situated near the road leadingto the village and bordered by a potato field anda meadow.

473

The Coleopterists Bulletin, 67(4): 473480. 2013.

Two types of trap were used to catch Carabidae.Traditional traps were made of 0.5-L, plastic,transparent cups, 10 cm in diameter at the top.In the modified traps, a plastic, transparent funnelwas mounted on the same type of traditional trapcontainer in order to reduce its opening (Fig. 1).The diameters of the funnel opening and the outletwere 10 cm and 2 cm, respectively.Traps were installed in the central part of the

field in two parallel rows, each comprising 10 trapsof each type. The distance between consecutivetraps in a row was about 10 m, and the distancebetween rows was 200 m. Traps were filled up to of their volume with ethylene glycol solutionwith a slight amount of detergent to reduce glycolsurface tension. Specimens were harvested fromthe pitfall traps every 710 days for a total of ninecollections between 15 May and 30 July 2006.Upon cleaning and drying, the insects were storedin paper envelopes. The collected Carabidae wereidentified using Hrkas (1996) key.Domination classes were described according

to Grny and Grm (1981) who distinguished aeudominants class (>10.0% of all specimens),dominants class (5.1 10.0%), subdominants class(2.1 5.0%), recedents class (1.1 2.0%), andsubrecedents class (

an inverse tendency in the initial period afterinstalling the traps. While the value of this indexdecreased rapidly in modified traps, it increased inthe case of traditional traps (Fig. 2). Three weeksfollowing the installation of the traps, the trappingefficiency was similar for both trap types.The analysis of material revealed slight dif-

ferences in body size of beetles captured by thetwo trap types. The average body size of beetlescaught in traditional and modified traps was10.592.21 mm and 10.132.08 mm, respec-tively. This difference did not prove statisticallysignificant (Mann-Whitney U test: Z=1.946,p>0.05).Total biomass of carabids caught in traditional

and modified traps equaled 7,100 mg and slightlymore than 4,300 mg, respectively, but this differ-ence was not significantly different (c2 = 4.344,p0.05).Species Composition, Structure of Domination,

and Ecological Structure. The two trap variantsdiffered in terms of domination structure (Fig. 3).Four classes of domination were documented inthe case of traditional traps, compared to five classesin modified traps. One species, Poecilus lepidus(Leske, 1785), belonged to the subdominant classin modified traps. Poecilus versicolor (Sturm,

1824) and Harpalus rufipes (De Geer, 1774) wereeudominants in traditional traps. Aside from thespecies mentioned above, the class of eudominantsin modified traps included Poecilus cupreus (L.,1758) (Fig. 3). The structure of domination in tra-ditional traps was more cumulated, while the struc-ture in modified traps was more evenly spread. Thefrequency of species in the various classes of domi-nation differed significantly between the traditionaland modified traps (c2=72.630, p

Lizard By-catch. By-catch with respect tolizards suggests a limiting effect of the funnel. Theattendance of lizards in both kinds of traps wasnoted only after 20 June, i.e., in the second halfof the studied period. A total of 19 specimenswere caught in traditional traps throughout thestudy period, while five specimens were col-lected from funneled traps. This difference wassignificant (c2 = 5.658, p

Fig. 4. Ecological and trophic structure of the carabid fauna as measured by traditional and modified pitfall traps.

477THE COLEOPTERISTS BULLETIN 67(4), 2013

the differences in trapping efficiency betweenthe two trap types were an expected effect. Manyprevious studies demonstrated the effect of trapconstruction on its efficacy (Mommertz et al.1996; Zalewski 1999; Prasifka et al. 2007).Szyszko (1985) and Spence and Niemel (1994)revealed that, compared to open traps, shelteredtraps are characterized by lower trapping effi-ciency. Also, the study by Mommertz et al. (1996),who analyzed the function of fenced traps,revealed their lower trapping efficiency. Althoughwe did not find any published research on fun-neled traps, open traps seem to be characterizedby a higher trapping effectiveness than any con-strained (shielded, fenced, funneled) traps in mostsites. Traps with constraining accessories selectfor portions of the carabid fauna in various ways.Changing micro-environmental conditions (e.g.,degree of shadowing, humidity) around the trapcan select for specific Carabidae depending ontheir preferences, activity, or particularly well-developed sense of vision (Van der Drift 1951;Baars 1979). Also, mechanical constraints such asa funnel or fence differentiate the material depend-ing on the size of insects and their ability to escapeafter contact with the trap (Zalewski 1999). Theuse of a funnel may have enabled some species

or individuals to escape (Spence and Niemel1994). Van der Drift (1951) described species thatare able to retain balance and withdraw after contactwith the trap. It seems that it is easier for speciesof larger dimensions to escape from modified traps.However, this was not confirmed by our findings.Perhaps, as suggested by Van der Drift (1951),beetles with serrated tarsal claws, as well as thosewith a better developed sense of vision, havehigher chances to exit the trap.The quantitative differences between material

caught in both variants of pitfall traps were alsoreflected by total biomass and mean individualbiomass (MIB). Similar differences were previouslyreported by Mommertz et al. (1996), who per-formed a comparative study of the effectiveness offenced and unfenced traps. The comparison of allparameters of the variables included in our study(trapping efficiency, body size, biomass, and MIB)suggests that they show differences with variousdegrees of sensitivity. While trapping efficiencyand biomass pointed to large and significant differ-ences in the effectiveness of the two trap types, MIBrevealed them to a markedly lesser extent, and thedifferences in body size proved insignificant.The use of modified traps revealed a different

domination structure of assemblage. It is well

Fig. 5. Shannon-Wiener and Pielou indices for Carabidae captured in traditional and modified pitfall traps.

THE COLEOPTERISTS BULLETIN 67(4), 2013478

known that in the assemblages living in environ-ments exposed to the pressure of anthropogenicfactors, a marked disproportion in the participa-tion of various species is usually observed, i.e.one or more species, better adapted to givenenvironmental conditions, significantly dominateover the others (Odum 1977). According to Huruk(2006), the pressure of factors associated withagriculture can be reflected by the alterations ofthe domination structure, leading to a predomi-nance of one or two species. Therefore, assumingsufficient statistical power of our samples, theevidently mono-dominant structure of specimenscaught in traditional traps seemed more reliablefor the studied assemblage. The above thesissupports the results described by Jaworska andWicek (2006), Huruk (2006), and Aleksandrowiczet al. (2008).Cultivated fields are habitats in which various

ecological groups of Carabidae are observed,usually those characteristic of open areas andeurytopic species (mainly predators) with moder-ate moisture requirements (Kosewska et al. 2009).As expected, both the qualitative and quantitativeecological profile of the carabid fauna was simi-lar in both trap variants. The use of the funneldid not modify the micro-environment aroundthe trap in any way. The ecological characteristicof assemblage reflected the habitat conditions ofthe studied site. A similar ecological structure offield assemblages was previously reported byHuruk (2002, 2006) and Kosewska et al. (2009).Slight differences in the Shannon-Wiener diver-

sity index and Pielous evenness index reflect adifferent frequency of various species in both typesof traps. According to Trojan (1992), the commonspecies, living in high concentration and domi-nating in the structure of assemblage, exert thestrongest effect on the value of the Shannon-Wiener index. Quantitative changes in this groupof animals are reflected in significant changes inthe value of this index. Slightly higher values ofthese indices for the modified trap resulted fromlower disproportion between the participation ineudominant and subdominant class. The use ofmodified traps did not significantly influence thediversity indices.The utilization of funneled traps reduced the

mortality of lizards, with particular effectivenessfor larger specimens. The funnel probably wouldalso limit the by-catch of other vertebrate ani-mals, such as frogs, voles, and mice. It wouldbe worthwhile to confirm this hypothesis in aseparate study. Simultaneously, the funneled trapsalso modulated the quantitative characteristicsof trapping Carabidae (number of captured speci-mens, trapping efficiency, total biomass) andthe structure of domination as compared with

traditional traps. However, it did not change theecological structure of the assemblage. Althoughthe use of the funnel reduces the ease of work-ing with traps in the field, it merits consideration,especially in protected areas.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We express our acknowledgment and thanksto Aleksandra Dzienniak for helping in collectingthe research material.

REFERENCES CITED

Adis, J. 1979. Problems of interpreting arthropod sam-pling with pitfall traps. Zoologischer Anzeiger202: 177184.

Aleksandrowicz, O., B. Pakua, and J. Mazur.2008. Biegaczowate (Coleoptera: Carabidae) wuprawie pszenicy w okolicy Lborka. SupskiePrace Biologiczne 5: 1525.

Baars, M. A. 1979. Catches in pitfall traps in relationto mean densities of carabid beetles. Oekologia41: 2546.

Benest, G. 1989. The sampling of a carabid commu-nity. The behaviour of a carabid when facingthe trap. Revue d Ecologie et de Biologie duSol 26: 20511.

Buchholz, S., A. M. Jess, F. Hertenstein, and J.Schirmel. 2010. Effect of the colour of pitfalltraps on their capture efficiency of carabidbeetles (Coleoptera: Carabidae), spiders (Araneae)and other arthropods. European Journal of Ento-mology 107: 277280.

Grny, M., and L. Grm. 1981. Metody stosowanew zoologii gleby. PWN, Warsaw, Poland.

Handke, K. 1995. Zur Laufkfer lines Bremer Flumar-shengebietes (Niedervieland/ Ochtumniederung/Ochtumsand). Zeitschrift fur Okolgie andNaturschutz 4: 203225.

Hbert, C., L. Jobin, M. Frchette, G. Pelletier,C. Coulombe, C. Germain, and M. Auger.2000. An efficient pit-light trap to study beetlediversity. Journal of Insect Conservation 4:191201.

Hrka, K. 1996. Carabidae of the Czech and SlovakRepublics. Kabourek, Zlin, Czech Republic.

Huruk, S. 2000. Powierzchniowe rozprzestrzenieniebiegaczowatych (Carabidae, Coleoptera) w obrbiemaych pl uprawnych. Rocznik witokrzyskiSer. B 27: 107116.

Huruk, S. 2002. Biegaczowate (Coleoptera, Carabidae)w jednorocznych uprawach rolnych na glebachbielicowych. Rocznik witokrzyski Ser. B 28:3952.

Huruk, S. 2006. Porwnanie struktur zgrupowabiegaczowatych (Coleoptera, Carabidae) k konychoraz przylegajcych do nich pl uprawnych.Wiadomoci Entomologiczne 25: 932.

Jaworska, T., and U. Wicek. 2006. Carabidae(Coleoptera) of cereal cultivations and neigh-bouring areas. Wiadomoci Entomologiczne 25:3343.

479THE COLEOPTERISTS BULLETIN 67(4), 2013

Kabacik, D. 1962. Beobachtungen ber dieQuantittsvernderungen der Laufkfer (Carabidae)auf verschiedenen Feldkulturen. Ekologia PolskaA 10: 307323.

Kosewska, A., M. Nietupski, D. Ciepielewska, andW. Somka. 2009. Czynniki wpywajce nastruktury zgrupowa naziemnych biegaczowatych(Col., Carabidae) w wybranych uprawach zb.Progress in Plant Protection 49 (3): 10351046.

Lindroth, C. H. 1945. Die Fennoskandichen Carabidae.Meddelanden Gteborgs Musei. ZoologiskaAvdelning 109: 17.

Matveev, V. A. 1990. Vidovoj sostav i raspredeleniezhuzhelic (Coleoptera: Carabidae) v otdelnychbiotopach v usloviah Marii jskoj ASSR[pp. 4647]. In: Fauna i Ekologia ZhuzhelicR. M. Berman, editor). Tezis dokladov IIIVsjesojuznogo karabidologicheskogo soveschchanija,Kischiniev, Republic of Moldova.

Mommertz, S., C. Schauer, N. Kosters, A. Lang,and J. Filser. 1996. A comparison of D-Vacsuction, fenced and unfenced pitfall trap sam-pling of epigeal arthropods in agroecosystems.Annales Zoologici Fennici 33: 117124.

Odum, E. P. 1977. Podstawy Ekologii. PWRiL,Warsaw, Poland.

Paosz, T. 1998. Studies on differences in epigealarthropods populations in 19951997 years onfields with different cultivation intensity. Prog-ress in Plant Protection 38: 565567.

Paosz, T. 2001. Quantifying the impact of habitatconditions on ground beetles (Carabidae) occur-rence in agroecosystems with a method ofcorrelation. Progress in Plant Protection 41:481484.

Prasifka, J. R., M. D. Lopez, R. L. Hellmich, L. C.Lewis, and G. P. Dively. 2007. Comparison ofpitfall traps and litter bags for sampling ground-dwelling arthropods. Journal of Applied Ento-mology 131: 115120.

Raworth, D. A., and M. Y. Choi. 2001. Determiningnumbers of active carabid beetles per unit area

from pitfall-trap data. Entomologia Experimentaliset Applicata 98: 95108.

Schwerk, A., and J. Szyszko. 2006. Succession ofcarabid fauna (Coleoptera: Carabidae) on post-industrial areas near Bechatw (Central Poland).Wiadomoci Entomologiczne 25: 7185.

Spence, J. R., and J. Niemel. 1994. Sampling carabidassemblages with pitfall traps: the madness andthe method. The Canadian Entomologist 126:881894.

Stanisz, A. 1998. Przystpny kurs Statystyki wOparciu o Program STATISTICA PL naPrzykadach z Medycyny. StatSoft Polska Sp.z o.o, Cracow, Poland.

Strzako, J., and F. Ronowski. 1992. ZastosowanieMetod Statystycznych w Biologii. WSP Supsk,Poland.

Sunderland, K. D., G. R. De Snoo, A. Dinter, T.Hance, J. Helenius, P. Jepson, B. Kromp,J. A. Lys, F. Samu, N. W. Sotherton, S. Toft,and B. Ulber. 1995. Density estimation forinvertebrate predators in agroecosystems. ActaJutlandica 70: 133162.

Szyszko, J. 1985. STN - Efektywna Puapka doOdowu Epigeicznych Carabidae w rodowiskuLenym. Prace Komisji Naukowych PTG,Warsaw, Poland.

Thiele, H.-U. 1977. Carabid Beetles in their Environments -A Study on Habitat Selection by Adaptationsin Physiology and Behavior. Springer-Verlag,Berlin, Germany.

Trojan, P. 1992. Analiza Struktury Fauny. MemorabiliaZoologica 47. Polish Academy od Science,Warsaw,Poland.

Van der Drift, J. 1951. Analysis of the animal com-munity in a beech forest floor. Tijdschrift voorEntomologie 94: 1168.

Zalewski, M. 1999. Dziwna fauna puapek Barbera.Wiadomosci Ekologiczne 2: 127145.

(Received 27 May 2013; accepted 15 September 2013.Publication date 20 December 2013.)

THE COLEOPTERISTS BULLETIN 67(4), 2013480