In 2004, we evaluated the relative performance of 8-unit Lindgren multiple-funnel (funnel), Intercept panel (panel), and Colossus pipe (pipe) traps, baited with ethanol and α-pinene lures, in catching saproxylic beetles (Coleoptera) in pine stands in northern Florida and western South Carolina. Panel traps were as good as, if not better than, funnel and pipe traps for catching Cerambycidae. In particular, more Monochamus titillator (F.) were captured in panel traps than in pipe and funnel traps. Of three species of Buprestidae captured in our study, most Buprestis lineata F. were caught in panel traps, whereas most Acmaeodera tubulus (F.) were caught in funnel traps. Catches of Chalcophora virginiensis Drury and the root-feeding weevils Hylobius pales Herbst and Pachylobius picivorus LeConte (Curculionidae) were unaffected by trap type. Among bark beetles (Curculionidae: Scolytinae), catches of Ips grandicollis (Eichhoff) were unaffected by trap type, whereas most Dendroctonus terebrans (Olivier) were caught in panel traps, most Hylastes salebrosus Eichhoff were caught in panel and pipe traps, and most Hylastes tenuis Eichhoff were caught in funnel traps. Among ambrosia beetles (Curculionidae: Scolytinae), panel traps caught the most Xyleborinus saxesenii (Ratzeburg), whereas pipe traps caught the most Xyleborus Eichhoff spp. More Xylosandrus crassiusculus (Motschulsky) and Dryoxylon onoharaensis (Murayama) were caught in panel and funnel traps than in pipe traps. Among bark beetle predators, more Platysoma Leach spp. (Histeridae) were caught in pipe and panel traps than in funnel traps, whereas most Lasconotus Erichson spp. (Zopheridae) were caught in funnel traps. Variation among trap performance for various species suggests that managers should consider more than one type of trap in their detection programs.
Miller, Daniel R.; Crowe, Christopher M. 2011. Relative Performance of Lindgren Multiple-Funnel, Intercept Panel, and Colossus Pipe Traps in Catching Cerambycidae and Associated Species in the Southeastern United States. J.Econ.Entomol. 104(6):1934-1941.