Abstract
The recent growth of conservation biology has demanded that faster and more effective measures of biodiversity be utilized. Arthropods, due to high levels of diversity and their relative ease of capture, are often the subject of such surveys. The vacuum sampler, used quite often in the context of agricultural arthropod surveys, has never been adequately evaluated or compared to more traditional collection techniques in relatively complex ecosystems. The purpose of this study was to determine whether the vacuum sampler was more or less effective than a sweep-net in measuring arthropod biodiversity in California coastal sage scrub. The results show that significantly more individuals were collected by the vacuum sampler per unit effort for three out of six orders of arthropods examined. In addition, the vacuum sampler collected a significantly greater number of arthropod species than the sweep-net technique for two out of the six orders sampled. There were no significant differences in the number of species collected for the remaining four orders. We feel these findings are important for arthropod biodiversity studies utilized for conservation efforts as the vacuum sampler can attain a level of efficiency and sensitivity (with regard to species detection) that sweep-net techniques cannot. © Rapid Science Ltd. 1998
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Alexander, C.P. and Byers, G.W. (1981) Tipulidae. In Manual of Nearctic Diptera, Volume 1 pp. 153–90. Research Branch Agricultural Canada, Monograph No. 27.
Allen, W.W., Coville, P.L. and Osborne, K.H. (1988) Integrated control of insects and mites on strawberries. In Annual Report of Strawberry Research pp. 43–61. Watsonville, California: California Strawberry Advisory Board.
Dietrick, E.J., Schlinger, E.I. and Garber, M.J. (1960) Vacuum cleaner principle applied in sampling insect populations in alfalfa fields by new machine method. Calif. Agric. 14, 9–11.
Duffey, E. (1980) The Efficiency of the Dietrick Vacuum Sampler (D-Vac) for invertebrate population studies in different types of grassland. Bull. d' Ecol. 11, 421–31.
Fleischer, S.J., Gaylor, M.J. and Edelson, J.V. (1985) Estimating absolute density for relative sampling of Lygus lineolaris (Heteroptera: Miridae) and selected predators in early to mid season cotton. Environ. Entomol. 14, 709–17.
Henderson, I.F. and Whitaker, T.M. (1977) The efficiency of an insect suction sampler in grassland. Ecol. Entomol. 2, 57–60.
Kesey-Bear Inc. (1997) ECOSIM version 1.1 (c) Burlington, Vermont.
Kremen, C. (1994) Biological inventory using target taxa: their use in conservation planning. Conserv. Biol. 4, 407–22.
Kremen, C., Colwell, R.K., Erwin, T.L., Murphy, D.D., Noss, R.F. and Sanjayan, M.A. (1993) Terrestrial arthropod assemblages: their use in conservation planning. Conserv. Biol. 7, 796–808.
MacLeod, A., Wratten, S.D., Harwood, R.W.J. (1994) The efficiency of a new lightweight suction sampler for sampling aphids and their predators in arable land. Ann. Appl. Biol. 124, 11–17.
Oliver, I. and Beattie, A.J. (1993) A possible method for the rapid assessment of biodiversity. Conserv. Biol. 7, 562–8.
Richmond, C.A. and Graham, H.M. (1969) Two methods of operating a vacuum sampler to sample populations of the Cotton Fleahopper on wild hosts. J. Econ. Entomol. 62, 525–6.
SAS Institute Inc. (1996) SAS, Version 6.12. Cary, North Carolina.
Southwood, T.R.E. (1978) Ecological Methods 2nd edn. New York: Chapman and Hall.
Stewart, A.J.A. and Wright, A.F. (1995) A new inexpensive suction apparatus for sampling arthropods in grassland. Ecol. Entomol. 20, 98–102.
Summers, C.G., Grant, R.E. and Zalom. F.G. (1984) New suction device for sampling arthropod populations. J. Econ. Entomol. 77, 817–23.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Buffington, M., Redak, R. A comparison of vacuum sampling versus sweep-netting for arthropod biodiversity measurements in California coastal sage scrub. Journal of Insect Conservation 2, 99–106 (1998). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1009653021706
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1009653021706