Premium
Suction samplers for grassland invertebrates: comparison of numbers caught using Vortis ™ and G‐vac devices
Author(s) -
Zentane Eman,
Quenu Henry,
Graham Robert I.,
Cherrill Andrew
Publication year - 2016
Publication title -
insect conservation and diversity
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.061
H-Index - 39
eISSN - 1752-4598
pISSN - 1752-458X
DOI - 10.1111/icad.12185
Subject(s) - invertebrate , suction , grassland , ecology , standing crop , biology , sampling (signal processing) , pitfall trap , environmental science , abundance (ecology) , geography , biomass (ecology) , physics , detector , meteorology , optics
The efficiency of Vortis ™ and a modified garden leaf‐blower/vacuum ‘G‐vac’ sampler were compared by sampling invertebrates using standardised sample areas and suction times at three grassland sites. The G‐vac caught more individuals of Araneae, Auchenorrhyncha, Thysanoptera and Hymenoptera than the Vortis. Numbers of Diptera did not differ between devices, but the Vortis ™ captured greater numbers of Coleoptera. Estimated air velocity within the collecting nozzle was greater for the G‐vac and its mode of application resulted in greater disturbance of the grass sward than with the Vortis ™ . These differences may have contributed to the larger captures of certain taxa by the G‐vac. It is concluded that G‐vacs can be applied with confidence as a credible alternative to the bespoke Vortis ™ , and particularly for taxa which are most frequently sampled using suction samplers.