Comparing four simple, inexpensive methods for sampling forest arthropod communities
Comparing four simple, inexpensive methods for sampling forest arthropod communities
复制标题
比较四种简单、廉价的森林节肢动物群落采样方法
DOI：
10.1111/jofo.12278
复制
发表时间：
2019
影响因子：
0.9
通讯作者：
T. Sherry
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
C. Kent;Ashley M. Peele;T. Sherry
陆生节肢动物是多种多样的，量化它们对消费者的可用性对于了解消费者和昆虫的分布、丰度和群落都很重要。然而，在复杂的森林生态系统中描述节肢动物群落具有挑战性。我们比较了节肢动物群落在潮湿的石灰岩森林在牙买加在旱季采样的四种方法：分支剪辑，扫网，粘性陷阱适用于树干和悬挂免费的植被。我们发现，对于可以在不同高度使用的两种方法，树冠中的相对高度没有影响，即，悬挂粘性陷阱和分支夹。此外，节肢动物群落采样随时间（季节）的扫网和分支剪辑。我们还发现，分支夹和清扫网采样更多的节肢动物类群比两个粘性陷阱的方法。此外，分支剪辑和扫网采样更多的蚂蚁和蜘蛛比两个粘性陷阱的方法，而在树干上的衣领粘性陷阱采样更多的树皮虱（Psocoptera），悬挂粘性陷阱更多的苍蝇（双翅目）比其他方法。在扫网和分支修剪之间，抽样的飞虫和强飞虫的数量没有差异，但两组中使用项圈和悬挂式粘性诱捕器捕获的百分比较高。因为我们发现不同的方法采样节肢动物群落的不同子集，无论是分类学上还是在空中与非空中类群方面，研究人员应该选择最接近他们的焦点物种和研究问题的节肢动物采样方法。例如，研究人员可能会使用项圈陷阱来研究树皮拾穗者，悬挂粘性陷阱来研究空中觅食者，分支剪辑或扫网来研究树叶拾穗者。或者，如果一个焦点物种是已知的，喜欢某些猎物项目，调查人员可能会选择一种方法，有效地采样这些猎物类群。最后，对于某些研究，使用多重抽样方法可能是最佳选择。
Terrestrial arthropods are diverse, and quantifying their availability to consumers is important for understanding both consumer and insect distribution, abundance, and communities. However, characterizing arthropod communities in complex forest ecosystems is challenging. We compared arthropod communities in a wet‐limestone forest in Jamaica during the dry season sampled by four methods: branch clips, sweep netting, and sticky traps applied to tree trunks and hanging free of vegetation. We found no effect of relative height in the canopy for the two methods that could be used at different heights, i.e., hanging sticky traps and branch clips. In addition, the arthropod community sampled changed over time (season) for sweep nets and branch clips. We also found that branch clips and sweep nets sampled more arthropod taxa than the two sticky‐trap methods. In addition, branch clips and sweep nets sampled more ants and spiders than the two sticky‐trap methods, whereas collar sticky traps on tree trunks sampled more bark lice (Psocoptera), and hanging sticky traps more flies (Diptera) than the other methods. Percentages of flying insects and strong‐flying insects sampled did not differ between sweep netting and branch clipping, but a higher percentage of both groups were captured with collar and hanging sticky traps. Because we found that the different methods sampled different subsets of the arthropod community, both taxonomically and in terms of aerial versus non‐aerial taxa, investigators should choose the arthropod sampling methods that most closely align with their focal species and study questions. For example, investigators might use collar traps for studies of bark gleaners, hanging sticky traps for aerial foragers, and branch clips or sweep nets for foliage gleaners. Alternatively, if a focal species is known to prefer certain prey items, investigators may instead select a method that effectively samples those prey taxa. Finally, for some studies, using multiple sampling methods may be the best option.