Traps for Capturing Insects

O’Hara, James E.; UsUpensky, Igor; Bostanian, N. J.; Chapman, Reg; Swisher, Marilyn E.; Barfield, Carl S.; Fitzgerald, Terrence D.; Scheffrahn, Rudolf H.; Constantino, Reginaldo; Sanborn, Allen; Gayubo, Severiano F.; Arthurs, Steven; Tipping, Christopher; Lysyk, Tim; Coons, Lewis B.; Rothschild, Marjorie; Randolph, Sarah; Choate, Paul M.; Jolivet, Pierre; Rogers, Michael E.; Potter, Daniel; Webster, Thomas C.; Nation, James L.; Hoy, Marjorie A.; Agrios, George N.; Purcell, Alexander H.; Epsky, Nancy D.; Morrill, Wendell L.; Mankin, Richard W.; Dietrich, Chris H.; Shanower, Thomas G.; beard, charles e.; Dicke, Marcel; Peña, Jorge E.; Lee, Clarence M.; Armstrong, Earlene; Dame, David A.; Williamson, R. Chris; Brandenburg, Rick; Thompson, Sarah; Heppner, John B.; Capinera, John L.; Clercq, Patrick De

doi:10.1007/978-1-4020-6359-6_2523

Cited by 4 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The use of an aerial net combined with a relatively inexperienced catcher resulted in a small yield of insects. Another trapping method, such as a combination of sticky traps and aerial interception traps (Epsky, Morrill, & Mankin, 2008) would have caught a larger number of flying arthropods, but this was not deemed practical during an outbreak where the catching had to be performed in a limited time, and decontaminating the catching tools at the exit of the infected premises was required. Sampling was performed to determine if it was at all possible to identify ASFV DNA in flying arthropods under field conditions; therefore, other units of the building were not sampled.…”

Section: Re Sults and Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Trace amounts of African swine fever virus DNA detected in insects collected from an infected pig farm in Estonia

Herm

Tummeleht

Jürison

et al. 2019

Veterinary Medicine & Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background African swine fever (ASF), a severe multi‐systemic disease in pigs, was introduced into Estonia in 2014. The majority of outbreaks have occurred during the summer months. Given that ASFV is transmitted in a sylvatic cycle that includes the transmission by African soft ticks and that mechanical transmission by flying insects was shown, transmission by other arthropod vectors need to be considered. Objectives Here, we report the results of a pilot study on flying insects caught on an outbreak farm during epidemiological investigations. Methods In brief, 15 different insect species (flies and mosquitoes) were collected by random catch using an aerial net. Nucleic acids derived from these samples or their pools were tested for African swine fever virus (ASFV) DNA by real‐time PCR. Results and Conclusions Viral DNA was detected in small quantities in two samples from flies and mosquitoes. Given the slow spread of virus within the farm, the impact of these findings seems rather low, but a role in local transmission cannot be ruled out. However, given the very low number of insects sampled, and taken into the account that viral isolation was not performed and insects outside the farm were not investigated, future investigations are needed to assess the true impact of insects as mechanical vectors.

show abstract

Section: Re Sults and Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Trace amounts of African swine fever virus DNA detected in insects collected from an infected pig farm in Estonia

Herm

Tummeleht

Jürison

et al. 2019

Veterinary Medicine & Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This trap shape is most often used in pitfall trapping studies and has been shown to be the most efficient in retaining captures (Ahmed & Petrovskii, 2019; Luff, 1975). In practice, different types of non‐pitfall traps are also used to catch various arthropods, flying as well as ground‐dwelling (O'Hara et al, 2008). Although our primary focus is on pitfall trapping, the results that follow are also applicable to other types of traps and various taxa.…”

Section: Modelling Movement and Trapping Of Ground‐dwelling Arthropodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Pitfall trapping is a widespread technique in ecology for sampling ground‐dwelling and randomly moving arthropods (hereafter ‘arthropods’ for brevity), with various applications (Bestelmeyer et al, 2000; Greenslade, 1964; Martín‐López et al, 2011; O'Hara et al, 2008; Pimentel, 2009). During a typical pitfall trapping protocol, several traps are installed in the sampling area, and the identity and abundance of species caught are routinely monitored and recorded after a few consecutive days, several weeks or even months depending on the study focus (Henderson & Southwood, 2016; Price & Feer, 2012).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Simulating capture efficiency of pitfall traps based on sampling strategy and the movement of ground‐dwelling arthropods

Ahmed,

Beidas,

Petrovskii

et al. 2023

Methods Ecol Evol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Pitfall traps are frequently used to capture ground‐dwelling arthropods, particularly beetles, ants and spiders. The capture efficiency of a pitfall trapping system strongly depends on the number and opening size of traps, how traps are distributed over the sampling area (spatial arrangement) and the movement characteristics of arthropods. We use numerical simulations for a single species to analyse the trap count patterns that emerge from these variables. Arthropod movement of individuals is modelled as correlated random walks, with multiple traps placed over an area, and catches are simulated as individual interaction with traps. We consider four different types of spatial arrangements of traps across a homogeneous landscape: grid (i.e. rectangular array), transect, nested‐cross and randomised. We contextualise our results by considering the locomotion of Pterostichus melanarius, a highly active carabid beetle often serving as a biocontrol agent for the suppression of pest insects and weeds. By simulating the trapping of randomly moving ground‐dwelling arthropods, we show that there is an optimal inter‐trap separation distance (trap spacing) that maximises captures, that can be expressed using exact formulae in terms of trap opening sizes, sampling area and trap number. Moreover, for the grid and nested‐cross arrangements, larger trap spacing to maximise spatial coverage over the whole sampling area is suboptimal. Also, we find that over a large sampling area, there is a hierarchical order for spatial arrangements in relation to capture efficiency: grid, randomised, transect, followed by the nested‐cross. However, over smaller sampling areas, this order is changed as the rate at which trap counts accumulate with trap number varies across arrangements—eventually saturating at different levels. In terms of movement effects, capture efficiency is maximised over a narrow diffusive range and does not depend strongly on the type of spatial arrangement—indicating an approximate optimal mode of arthropod activity, i.e. rate of spread. Our approach simultaneously considers several important experimental design aspects of pitfall trapping providing a basis to optimise and adapt sampling protocols to other types of traps to better reflect their various purposes, such as monitoring, conservation or pest management.

show abstract

“…A comparatively large amount of evidence on the working mechanisms and efficacy of insect-killing traps is available. A variety of attractants are used in insect-killing traps, such as blue UV-light [ 124 ], carbon dioxide [ 125 ], octenol [ 126 ] and heat [ 127 ], all of which are scientifically proven to draw insects.…”

Section: Figurementioning

confidence: 99%

Narrative Review on Health-EDRM Primary Prevention Measures for Vector-Borne Diseases

Chan

Sham

Shahzada

et al. 2020

IJERPH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Climate change is expanding the global at-risk population for vector-borne diseases (VBDs). The World Health Organization (WHO) health emergency and disaster risk management (health-EDRM) framework emphasises the importance of primary prevention of biological hazards and its value in protecting against VBDs. The framework encourages stakeholder coordination and information sharing, though there is still a need to reinforce prevention and recovery within disaster management. This keyword-search based narrative literature review searched databases PubMed, Google Scholar, Embase and Medline between January 2000 and May 2020, and identified 134 publications. In total, 10 health-EDRM primary prevention measures are summarised at three levels (personal, environmental and household). Enabling factor, limiting factors, co-benefits and strength of evidence were identified. Current studies on primary prevention measures for VBDs focus on health risk-reduction, with minimal evaluation of actual disease reduction. Although prevention against mosquito-borne diseases, notably malaria, has been well-studied, research on other vectors and VBDs remains limited. Other gaps included the limited evidence pertaining to prevention in resource-poor settings and the efficacy of alternatives, discrepancies amongst agencies’ recommendations, and limited studies on the impact of technological advancements and habitat change on VBD prevalence. Health-EDRM primary prevention measures for VBDs require high-priority research to facilitate multifaceted, multi-sectoral, coordinated responses that will enable effective risk mitigation.

show abstract

Traps for Capturing Insects

Cited by 4 publications

References 0 publications

Trace amounts of African swine fever virus DNA detected in insects collected from an infected pig farm in Estonia

Trace amounts of African swine fever virus DNA detected in insects collected from an infected pig farm in Estonia

Simulating capture efficiency of pitfall traps based on sampling strategy and the movement of ground‐dwelling arthropods

Narrative Review on Health-EDRM Primary Prevention Measures for Vector-Borne Diseases

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About