Skip to Main Content
Comparison of arboreal beetle catches in wet and dry collection cups with lindgren multiple funnel trapsAuthor(s): Daniel R. Miller; Donald A. Duerr
Source: J. Econ. Entomol., Vol. 101(1): 107-113
Publication Series: Miscellaneous Publication
PDF: Download Publication (84.20 KB)
DescriptionWe compared the effectiveness of a dry collection cup (with an insecticide killing strip) to a wet collection cup (containing antifreeze) for use with Lindgren multiple-funnel traps in catching several common species of bark and wood-boring beetles, and their associates in southern pine forests. All traps were baited with either the binary combination of ethanol and (±)-a-pinene or the quaternary combination of (±)-ipsenol, (±)-ipsdienol, ethanol, and (±)-±-pinene. We found that cup treatment had little, if any, effect on catches of Ips avulsus (Eichhoff) and I. grandicollis (Eichhoff) (Coleoptera: Scolytidae), Alaus myops (F.) (Elateridae), Chalcophora Solier species (Buprestidae), Temnochila virescens (F.) (Trogositidae), and Lasconotus Erichson species (Colydiidae). In contrast, catches of the following species were signiÞcantly less (by 40Ð97%) in traps with dry cups than in traps with wet cups: Hylobius pales Herbst and Pachylobius picivorus LeConte (Curculionidae); Buprestis lineata F. (Buprestidae); Acanthocinus obsoletus (Olivier), Arhopalus rusticus nubilus (LeConte), Monochamus titillator (F.) and Xylotrechus sagittatus agittatus (Cerambycidae); Hylastes porculus Erichson and Xyleborinus saxeseni (Ratzeburg) (Scolytidae); and
(F.) (Cleridae). The same was true in at least one experiment for the following species: Dendroctonus terebrans (Olivier), Hylastes salebrosus Eichhoff, Hylastes tenuis Eichhoff, and Xylosandrus crassiusculus (Motschulsky) (Scolytidae). We conclude that cup treatment can have a signiÞcant impact on catches of some arboreal beetles in baited multiple-funnel traps. Anyone using multiple-funnel traps to capture arboreal beetles should evaluate the potential impacts arising from their choice of collection cup treatment to their trapping objectives and expectations. The issue of cup treatment may be particular important at low population levels when maximum trap efficiency is required such as in the detection of exotic insects at ports-of-entry and within quarantine and containment zones.
- You may send email to firstname.lastname@example.org to request a hard copy of this publication.
- (Please specify exactly which publication you are requesting and your mailing address.)
- We recommend that you also print this page and attach it to the printout of the article, to retain the full citation information.
- This article was written and prepared by U.S. Government employees on official time, and is therefore in the public domain.
CitationMiller, Daniel R.; Duerr, Donald A. 2008. Comparison of arboreal beetle catches in wet and dry collection cups with lindgren multiple funnel traps. J. Econ. Entomol., Vol. 101(1): 107-113
KeywordsCerambycidae, curculionidae, detection, multiple-funnel trap, scolytidae
- Relative Performance of Lindgren Multiple-Funnel, Intercept Panel, and Colossus Pipe Traps in Catching Cerambycidae and Associated Species in the Southeastern United States
- Effects of ethanol and α-pinene in a generic trap lure blend for pine bark and wood-boring beetles in southeastern United States
- Bark Beetle pheromones and pine volatiles: Attractant Kairomone Lure Blend for Longhorn Beetles (Cerambycidae) in pine stands of the southeastern United States.
XML: View XML