A potential contamination error associated with insect protein mark‐capture data

Various types of protein‐spray solutions have proven effective for externally tagging arthropods for mark‐release‐recapture and mark‐capture type dispersal research. However, there is concern that certain standardized arthropod collection methods, such as sweep netting, might lead to high incidences of protein transfer from field‐marked to unmarked arthropods during sample collection and sample handling. Native arthropods were collected in sweep nets from a field of alfalfa, M edicago sativa L . ( F abaceae). The nets also contained 10 egg white‐, 10 bovine milk‐, 10 soy milk‐, and 10 water (control)‐marked H ippodamia convergens G uérin‐ M éneville ( C oleoptera: C occinellidae) that were visually distinguishable by a yellow, white, green, and blue dot, respectively. The plant debris and arthropods from each sweep net collection were then placed into either a paper or a plastic bag and frozen for storage. The contents of each sweep net sample were thawed and the color‐coded H . convergens and field‐collected arthropods were examined for the presence of each protein by an egg white (albumin), bovine milk (casein), and soy milk (soy trypsin) enzyme‐linked immunosorbent assay ( ELISA ). Data revealed that only 0.67, 0.81, and 0% of the field‐collected unmarked arthropods acquired an egg white, bovine milk, and soy milk mark, respectively. ELISA results also showed that all the egg white‐marked H . convergens retained their mark, but 22.1% of the bovine milk‐marked and 5.1% of the soy milk‐marked H . convergens (color‐coded beetles) lost their mark during the collection and sample handling processes.