Comparison of Three Insect Sampling Methods in Sweetpotato Foliage in Mississippi

Reed, Jack T.; Adams, L. C.; Abel, Craig A.

doi:10.18474/0749-8004-45.2.111

Cited by 6 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Several contrasts of other sampling methods (e.g., sweep netting, vacuum sampling, drop cloths, pan trapping, pitfall trapping, litterbags, flight intercept traps, etc.) have been done in agricultural settings (Shepard et al 1974;Mayse et al 1978;Kogan and Pitre 1980;Bechinski and Pedigo 1982;Garcia et al 1982;Nuessly and Sterling 1984;Deighan et al 1985;Kharboutli and Mack 1993;Kharboutli and Allen 2000;McLeod 2000;Prasifka et al 2007;Reed et al 2010), tropical forests (Sabu et al 2011;Cooper et al 2012;Lamarre et al 2012), coastal sage scrub (Buffington and Redak 1998), northern tundra (Norment 1987), shrub/mixed grass prairie (Doxon et al 2011), and experimental fields (Evans and Bailey 1993;Roulston et al 2007), but none in grasslands. The consensus from these general contrasts, however, is that an individual sampling method may be appropriate for specific arthropod taxa, but community-level surveys require the use of more than one method to capture adequate estimates of arthropod abundance and richness.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…; Reed et al. ), peanuts (Kharboutli and Mack ), cotton (Garcia et al. ; Nuessly and Sterling ; Kharboutli and Allen ), and snap bean (McLeod ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, the overall effectiveness of different arthropod sampling methods has been only cursorily explored. The majority of existing studies have contrasted sampling methods in row crops including soybean (Shepard et al 1974;Mayse et al 1978;Kogan and Pitre 1980;Bechinski and Pedigo 1982;Deighan et al 1985), corn and sweet potatoes (Prasifka et al 2007;Reed et al 2010), peanuts (Kharboutli and Mack 1993), cotton (Garcia et al 1982;Nuessly and Sterling 1984;Kharboutli and Allen 2000), and snap bean (McLeod 2000). Other studies have contrasted sampling methods in tropical forests (Sabu et al 2011;Cooper et al 2012;Lamarre et al 2012), coastal sage scrub (Buffington and Redak 1998), northern tundra (Norment 1987), shrub/mixed grass prairie (Doxon et al 2011), and experimental fields (Evans and Bailey 1993;Roulston et al 2007).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Sweeping beauty: is grassland arthropod community composition effectively estimated by sweep netting?

Spafford

Lortie

2013

Ecology and Evolution

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Arthropods are critical ecosystem components due to their high diversity and sensitivity to perturbation. Furthermore, due to their ease of capture they are often the focus of environmental health surveys. There is much debate regarding the best sampling method to use in these surveys. Sweep netting and pan trapping are two sampling methods commonly used in agricultural arthropod surveys, but have not been contrasted in natural grassland systems at the community level. The purpose of this study was to determine whether sweep netting was effective at estimating arthropod diversity at the community level in grasslands or if supplemental pan trapping was needed. Arthropods were collected from grassland sites in Montana, USA, in the summer of 2011. The following three standardized evaluation criteria (consistency, reliability, and precision) were developed to assess the efficacy of sweep netting and pan trapping, based on analyses of variations in arthropod abundances, species richness, evenness, capture frequency, and community composition. Neither sampling method was sufficient in any criteria to be used alone for community-level arthropod surveys. On a taxa-specific basis, however, sweep netting was consistent, reliable, and precise for Thysanoptera, infrequently collected (i.e., rare) insects, and Arachnida, whereas pan trapping was consistent, reliable, and precise for Collembola and bees, which is especially significant given current threats to the latter's populations worldwide. Species-level identifications increase the detected dissimilarity between sweep netting and pan trapping. We recommend that community-level arthropod surveys use both sampling methods concurrently, at least in grasslands, but likely in most nonagricultural systems. Target surveys, such as monitoring bee communities in fragmented grassland habitat or where detailed information on behavior of the target arthropod groups is available can in some instances employ singular methods. As a general ecological principle, consistency, reliability, and precision are appropriate criteria to evaluate the applicability of a given sampling method for both community-level and taxa-specific arthropod surveys in any ecosystem.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…; Reed et al. ), peanuts (Kharboutli and Mack ), cotton (Garcia et al. ; Nuessly and Sterling ; Kharboutli and Allen ), and snap bean (McLeod ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Sweeping beauty: is grassland arthropod community composition effectively estimated by sweep netting?

Spafford

Lortie

2013

Ecology and Evolution

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…servus (Tukey’s HSD, P <0.05) ( Table 4 ). Stink bug population numbers never exceeded the economic thresholds in either soybean [ 53 ] or cotton [ 54 ] when normalized for sampling effort [ 55 ].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Predation on stink bugs (Hemiptera: Pentatomidae) in cotton and soybean agroecosystems

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Stink bugs (Hemiptera: Pentatomidae) are significant pests of cotton and soybeans in the southeastern United States with annual control costs exceeding $14 million in these crops. Three of the most prominent stink bug pests are the southern green (Nezara viridula), brown (Euschistus servus) and green (Chinavia hilaris) stink bugs. To determine trophic linkages between generalist arthropod predators and these pests, species-specific 16S molecular markers were designed and used to detect the presence of prey DNA in predator gut-contents. Over 2700 predators were collected over two growing seasons in cotton and soybean in southern Georgia in 2011 and 2012 and screened for stink bug DNA. Trophic linkages were analyzed relative to prey availability, crop type and field location. The frequency of stink bug DNA in predator guts was negligible on E. servus (0.23%) and C. hilaris (0.09%). Overall gut content detection of N. viridula was 3.3% and Geocoris sp. (Hemiptera: Geocoridae), Orius sp. (Hemiptera: Anthocoridae) and Notoxus monodon (Coleoptera: Anthicidae) were the primary predators. This contrasts with previous studies that reported a much more diverse suite of predators consuming stink bugs with much higher frequency of gut-content positives. The discrepancy between studies highlights the need for replicating studies in space and time, especially if the goal is to implement effective and durable conservation biological control in integrated pest management.

show abstract

“…Their results recorded significant difference between the tested traps in thrips populations. Also, three sampling methodssweep-net, hand-vacuum modified from a leaf vacuum blower, and a wheeled, blower-vacuum designed to blow insects from the foliage into the vacuum port of a leaf vacuum-were compared as methods for sampling insects in sweet potatoes, Ipomoea batatas L. (Reed et al, 2010). The results obtained by Rezaei et al, (2014) showed that species of leafhoppers Macrosteles laevis, Psammotettix alienus, Empoasca decipiens and Laodelphax striatellus collected by sweep net were recorded as the dominant leafhoppers of cereal fields in Shahrekord city, Iran.…”

Section: -Impact Of Sampling Methods On the Population Trend Evaluationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Population Density of Certain Piercing-Sucking Insects Infesting Wheat and its Associated Coccinellid Predator in Relation to Sampling Methods

Amro

Salem

El-Raheem

2016

Journal of Plant Protection and Pathology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Population trends of certain piercing-sucking insects infesting wheat i.e. Thrips sp L., Empoasca spp and its associated coccinellid predator Coccinella undecimpunctata was determined by using yellow sticky traps (YST), direct count and sweep net methods on wheat fields. The tested taxa exhibited one seasonal peak only/each. By using YST both Thrips sp and Empoasca spp showed that their peaks at March 5 with a general average of 242.5 and 12.25 individuals/ 1 YST, respectively. No or very few numbers of C. undecimpunctata were collected by this method. Concerning the direct count method, Thrips sp and C. undecimpunctata exhibited their peaks at February 26 with a general average of 10.50 and 19.50 individuals/10 wheat tillers, respectively. However, Empoasca spp is completely disappeared. By using sweep net both Thrips sp and Empoasca spp revealed that semi-equal peaks at early and mid-February, while C. undecimpunctata peak was appeared one to four weeks later. Concerning the effectiveness of the used sampling methods it is appeared that yellow sticky traps can be used successfully to determine thrips populations. However, the direct count inspection can be considered as the most suitable method for determining coccinellid population trends. On the other hand, sweep net can be used as a successful method for determining Thrips sp, Empoasca spp and C. undecimpunctata in wheat fields.

show abstract

Comparison of Three Insect Sampling Methods in Sweetpotato Foliage in Mississippi

Cited by 6 publications

References 4 publications

Sweeping beauty: is grassland arthropod community composition effectively estimated by sweep netting?

Sweeping beauty: is grassland arthropod community composition effectively estimated by sweep netting?

Predation on stink bugs (Hemiptera: Pentatomidae) in cotton and soybean agroecosystems

Population Density of Certain Piercing-Sucking Insects Infesting Wheat and its Associated Coccinellid Predator in Relation to Sampling Methods

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About