The Technical and Performance Characteristics of a Low-Cost, Simply Constructed, Black Light Moth Trap

Abstract

The universal mercury vapor black light trap is an effective device used for collecting moth specimens in a wide variety of habitats; yet, they can present challenges for researchers. The mercury vapor trap is often powered by a heavy automotive battery making it difficult to conduct extensive surveys in remote regions. The mercury vapor trap also carries a considerable financial cost per trap unit, making trapping challenging with low research budgets. Here, we describe the development and trapping properties of a lighter, simply constructed, and less expensive trap. The LED funnel trap consists of a funnel, soda bottles with plastic vanes, and is powered by rechargeable 9-V batteries. Two strips of low-wavelength LEDs are used as attractants. We tested the trapping parameters of this trap design compared to a standard mercury vapor trap over 10 trap nights in a suburban woodlot in the summer of 2015. The mercury vapor trap caught significantly more moth individuals than the LED trap (average of 78 vs 40 moths per trap night; P < 0.05), and significantly more species than the LED trap (23 vs 15 per trap night; P < 0.05); the mercury vapor trap caught a total of 104 macromoth species over the duration of the study, compared to a total of 87 by the LED trap. Despite the lower yields, the low cost of the LED trap (<$30 ea.) makes it superior to the mercury vapor trap in cost-acquisition per moth species and per moth individual trapped. The LED trap may be a viable alternative to the standard mercury vapor trap, facilitating insect trapping in more diverse settings.

Assessing the efficiency of UV LEDs as light sources for sampling the diversity of macro-moths (Lepidoptera)

“…This hypothesis seems to be confi rmed for Plodia interpunctella (Hübner) (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae), which is signifi cantly more attracted by LEDs emitting at 405 nm compared to other wavelengths (Cowan & Gries, 2009) and confi rmed by electroretinogram recordings. White et al (2016) tested the effi ciency of traps equipped with 18 UV LEDs for catching moths relative to that of light traps equipped with 12W black light mercury vapour bulbs. They found UV LEDs less effective than the other light source, but evaluated the former more cost-effective.…”

Transcriptome analysis of molecular mechanisms responsible for light-stress response in Mythimna separata (Walker)

“…In view of this phenomenon, several kinds of light traps have been used to monitor or reduce the populations of nocturnal insects, particularly noctuid moths1926. Artificial light can alter the habitat of nocturnal insects and disturb their normal behaviours, including flight, orientation, dispersal, migration, communication, foraging, mate recognition, oviposition, eclosion, and daily activity rhythms22232425, as well as affecting reproduction and populations of nocturnal insects by altering the night-time environment2728.…”

A new LED lamp for the collection of nocturnal Lepidoptera and a spectral comparison of light-trapping lamps

“…A transparent acrylic cylinder has only a minimal influence on the irradiation from the lamp whereas a matt acrylic cylinder (dashed white line) slightly decreases the performance of the lamp, see also Table 1. than fluorescent BL and BLB tubes used in many previous field studies (e.g. Brehm and Axmacher 2005), and to provide a higher output than in previously described LED-based designs (Green et al 2012;Price and Baker 2016;White et al 2016;Infusino et al 2017).…”

“…Power LEDs with a maximum power consumption of 3 W were chosen because they are generally more energy efficient than Power LEDs ≤ 1 W as found for example in LED stripes (White et al 2016;Infusino et al 2017). On the other hand, LEDs with higher wattage (e.g., 5 or 10 W) were not considered since this would have easily surpassed the desired maximum power consumption of ca.…”