Emergence traps for aquatic insects

Mundie, J. H.

doi:10.1080/05384680.1956.11904089

Cited by 28 publications

(22 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Conical emergence traps, with a mouth opening of 0.1 m^, constructed from pressed polyvinyl chloride were used to collect adult Chironomidae and pupal exuviae (Brundin, 1949;Mundie, 1956;Hamilton, 1965;Southwood, 1966). Three trap stations at 3 m intervals were established perpendicular to the shore in temporary ponds while five trap stations were used in the more permanent ponds.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Chironomid communities in small prairie ponds: some characteristics and controls

Driver¹

1977

Freshwater Biology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In a study of small prairie ponds in Central Saskatchewan, chironomid diversity was dependent on the stage of development of the plant community within a moisture gradient. Changes in the moisture regime affect the plant community directly, which in turn influences the diversity of the chironomid community. Rapid or complete water level reduction in a pond maintains a very simple chironomid community, three to ten species, and a simple plant community of two to three dominant species. Increased water levels eliminate emergent and submergent plants, thereby eliminating those chironomid species which live in association with the plants. Pond morphometry (mean depth, maximum depth, surface area) and water chemistry (pH and bicarbonate) showed positive relationships with chironomid diversity. The precise nature of these relationships was not determined.Chironomid diversity increases gradually from very temporary ponds to permanent ponds, therefore, chironomids can be used as indicators of pond permanency.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Chironomid communities in small prairie ponds: some characteristics and controls

Driver¹

1977

Freshwater Biology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Such considerations make floating, or mobile traps the best for most purposes (Mundie 1956) although even these mav admit bias to the extent that, as relativeIy protected sites, they are patronized disproportionatelv durin windy weather. When the emerging population has to be sampled, as with traps, it is necessarv that samples remain representative throughout the emergence period.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Temporal Patterns of Emergence in Aquatic Insects

Corbet¹

1964

Can Entomol

144

107

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In aquatic insects, emergence (ecdysis to the adult or subimaginal stage) varies widely in temporal pattern. The comparative study of this pattern is feasible and informative in orders such as Plecoptera, Ephemeroptera, Odonata, Diptera and Trichoptera in which all members of a population pass through the water-surface when emerging. Methods by which emergence rate can be measured are discussed. Four basic temporal patterns of emergence exist. Emergence may be (1) continuous with irregular fluctuations in rate; (2) rhythmic, with a lunar period; (3) sporadic, occurring at irregular intervals of a few days; or (4) seasonal. Examples of each of these patterns are given, and reference is made to the proximate and ultimate environmental factors which may be maintaining the patterns observed. Diurnal rhythms of emergence are excluded from consideration. When emergence is restricted seasonally in temperate latitudes, the degree of its synchronization within the emergence period varies widely but is usually constant and typical for a given species. This has provided the basis for an ecological classification of British Odonata, the validity of which is examined in the light of recent research.

show abstract

“…Four Mundie pyramid emergence traps (Merritt and Cummins, 1996 Fig. 3.26;Mundie, 1956) comprised of tented aluminum mesh screening set on floating frames were anchored in 1-1.5 m of water for the WI sites and 4-5 m for the MI sites. Traps used at the primary site covered 0.18 m 2 of water surface area, while light-weight, mobile traps used at secondary sites covered 0.20 m 2 of water surface area.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%