Hi Dave Smith: [beemonitoring] pan trapping vs malaise trapping for pollinator inventories
- January 7, 2009
Hi Dave Smith,
I ran Townes-style Malaise traps (without baits) in the 1970s through
1990s, in Washington, D.C.; Maryland; Virginia; and West Virginia
(depending on the year). The traps obtained large bee samples. The
resource input to process the specimens is very high as Matthew Sarver
indicated. Most bees are removed from the samples, I have 1000s of bee
specimens in need of analysis, and I am very behind in publishing about
the bees, but did get out:
Kalhorn, K. D., E. M. Barrows, and W. E. LaBerge. 2003. Bee
(Hymenoptera: Apoidea: Apiformes) Diversity in an Appalachian Shale
Barrens. Journal of the Kansas Entomological Society 76: 455–468.
Cheers, Edd Barrows
> Hi All,
> I have looked at earlier studies where malaise traps were used to
> collect flying insects as part of montane pollinator studies. Are
> malaise traps still used or have pantraps and netting been deemed a
> suitable replacement?. I know you can buy a lot a small plastic cups
> for the price of a malaise trap.
> Thanks a lot,
> Dave Smith
- I agree with Matt
I ran Malaise traps in subtropics without many success on bees. More on Diptera, moths and parasitic wasps.
An interseption trap with big yellow plates below was better for me.
a combination of several techniques will be better. Don't forget to sweep with an entomological net
Julio A. Genaro
Editor Cocuyo: Newsletter of Invertebrate Zoologists of the Antilles
Editor Solenodon: Antillean Journal of Zoological Taxomomy
Personal webside: http://www.caribbeanahigroup.org/editorialboard.htm
Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2009 10:35:16 -0500
Subject: RE: [beemonitoring] pan trapping vs malaise trapping for pollinator inventoriesDave -Since malaise traps don't rely on the insect being attracted to the colored bowl, the malaise will yield a much broader sample of the flying insect community, especially if you use a modified design that includes a lower collection chamber for those insects that drop down, rather than fly up, when they hit the mesh. I don't know how bee catches in particular compare between malaise and bowl traps, but you will likely get a much larger sample (in terms of both diversity and bulk) of other Hymenoptera, Diptera, and Coleoptera from a malaise, including many groups of insects that you would not get from bowl traps. Conversely, you lose the attraction power of the UV paints, so the malaise is likely to be less efficient at capturing bees, if that is your group of interest. You will also catch a lot moths, and will have a lot of sorting (and washing of moth scales) to do to pick out your groups of interest. Make sure you have the finances and manpower to process malaise samples before you decide to use them. The process is extremely labot-intensive. Bowl trap and netting samples are much less labor-intensive to clean and sort. Malaise traps definitely still have their place in the sampling repertoire, if you have the resources to purchase, deploy, and process samples from them. It really depends upon the goals of your study. Hope that is helpful!BestMattMatthew SarverSarver Ecological Consulting173 Wallace RdBlairsville, PA 15717Email: mjsarver AT gmail.comCell: 724-689-5845
From: beemonitoring@ yahoogroups. com [mailto:beemonitori ng@yahoogroups. com] On Behalf Of David_r_smith@ fws.gov
Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2009 10:12 AM
To: beemonitoring@ yahoogroups. com
Subject: [beemonitoring] pan trapping vs malaise trapping for pollinator inventories
I have looked at earlier studies where malaise traps were used to collect flying insects as part of montane pollinator studies. Are malaise traps still used or have pantraps and netting been deemed a suitable replacement? . I know you can buy a lot a small plastic cups for the price of a malaise trap.
Thanks a lot,
Get easy photo sharing with Windows Live™ Photos. Drag n’ drop