Eur. J. Entomol. 114: 123-132, 2017 | DOI: 10.14411/eje.2017.017

A comparison of methods for sampling aquatic insects (Heteroptera and Coleoptera) of different body sizes, in different habitats using different baits

Nataąa TURIĆ1, Martina TEMUNOVIĆ2,3, Goran VIGNJEVIĆ1, Jasenka ANTUNOVIĆ DUNIĆ1, Enrih MERDIĆ1
1 University Josip Juraj Strossmayer in Osijek, Department of Biology, Cara Hadrijana 8/A, HR-31000 Osijek, Croatia; e-mails: nturic@biologija.unios.hr, gvignjevic@biologija.unios.hr, jantunovic@biologija.unios.hr, enrih@biologija.unios.hr
2 University of Zagreb, Department of Forest Genetics, Dendrology and Botany, Svetoąimunska 25, HR-10000 Zagreb, Croatia; e-mail: martina.temunovic@gmail.com
3 Association BIOM, Croatian Institute for Biodiversity, Preradovićeva 34, HR-10000 Zagreb, Croatia

Although various methods exist for sampling aquatic Heteroptera and Coleoptera in standing water, there are very few comparisons of their performance in different types of habitat. In this study, we evaluated and compared the efficiency and selectivity of three sampling methods: hand netting, bottle traps baited with canned tuna and bottle traps baited with canned cat food. The methods were compared over the period 2010-2012 in two different habitats (temporarily flooded areas and canals) in the Nature Park Kopački rit, a floodplain on the banks of the River Danube. The results show that the effectiveness of the method differed in the two habitats. Overall, hand netting was the most successful method, mainly in canals. Tuna fish bait was more efficient than the commonly used cat food, especially for large and highly mobile species of Dytiscidae. These findings indicate that knowing the type of habitat and the habitat preferences of aquatic insects and their activity it is possible to predict which of these methods are the best for estimating species richness.

Keywords: Heteroptera, Coleoptera, aquatic insects, sampling, comparison, bait, body size, habitat type, species richness

Received: October 26, 2016; Accepted: January 31, 2017; Published online: February 23, 2017

Download citation

References

  1. Balke M. 2005: Dytiscidae. In Beutel R.G. & Leschen R. (eds): Handbook of Zoology IV, 38(1), Coleoptera. DeGruyter, Berlin, pp. 90-116.
  2. Batzer D.P. & Wissinger S.A. 1996: Ecology of insect communities in nontidal wetlands. - Annu. Rev. Entomol. 41: 75-100. Go to original source...
  3. Bouchard R.W. 2004: Guide to Aquatic Macroinvertebrates of the Upper Midwest. Water Resources Center, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, 208 pp.
  4. Boukal D.S., Boukal M., Fikáček M., Hájek J., Klečka J., Skalický S., ©»astný J. & Trávníček D. 2007: Catalogue of water beetles of the Czech Republic (Coleoptera: Sphaeriusidae, Gyrinidae, Haliplidae, Noteridae, Hygrobiidae, Dytiscidae, Helophoridae, Georissidae, Hydrochidae, Spercheidae, Hydrophilidae, Hydraenidae, Scirtidae, Elmidae, Dryopidae, Limnichidae, Heteroceridae, Psephenidae). - Klapalekiana (Suppl.) 43: 289 pp.
  5. Colwell R.K., Mao C.X. & Chang J. 2004: Interpolating, extrapolating, and comparing incidence-based species accumulation curves. - Ecology 85: 2717-2727. Go to original source...
  6. Csabai Z. 2000: Vízibogarak kishatározója, I. kötet. Vízi természet- és kornyezetvedelem. 15. kötet, Környezetgazdálkodási intézet, Budapest, 267 pp.
  7. Csabai Z., Gidó Z. & Szél G. 2002: Vízibogarak kishatározója II. [A Guide for the Identification of Water Beetles of Hungary II.] In: Vízi természet- és kornyezetvedelem. 16. kötet. [Water, Nature and Environment Protection. Vol. 16.] Environmental Management Institute, Budapest, 206 pp.
  8. Elmberg J., Nummi P., Pöysä H. & Sjöberg K. 1992: Do introducing predators affect the reliability of catches in activity traps? - Hydrobiologia 239: 187-193. Go to original source...
  9. Fairchild G.W., Cruz J., Faulds A.M., Short A.E.Z. & Matta J.F. 2003: Microhabitat and landscape influences on aquatic beetle assemblages in a cluster of temporary and permanent ponds. - J. North Am. Benthol. Soc. 22: 224-240. Go to original source...
  10. Florencio M., Díaz-Paniagua C., Gomez-Mestre I. & Serrano L. 2012: Sampling macroinvertebrates in a temporary pond: comparing the suitability of two techniques to detect richness, spatial segregation and diel activity. - Hydrobiologia 689: 121-130. Go to original source...
  11. Foggo A., Rundle S.D. & Bilton D. 2003: The net result: evaluating species richness extrapolation techniques for littoral pond invertebrates. - Freshw. Biol. 48: 1756-1764. Go to original source...
  12. Foster G.N. 1987: The use of Coleoptera records in assessing the conservation value of Wetlands. In Luff M. (ed.): The Use of Invertebrate Community Data in Environmental Assessment. University of Newcastle, Newcastle upon Tyne, pp. 8-18.
  13. Franciscolo M.E. 1979: Fauna d'Italia, Vol. XIV: Coleoptera: Haliplidae, Hygrobiidae, Gyrinidae, Dytiscidae. Calderini, Bologna, vi + 804 pp.
  14. García-Criado F. & Trigal C. 2005: Comparison of several techniques for sampling macroinvertebrates in different habitats of a North Iberian pond. - Hydrobiologia 545: 103-115. Go to original source...
  15. Hilsenhoff W.L. 1987: Effectiveness of bottle traps for collecting Dytiscidae (Coleoptera). - Coleopt. Bull. 41: 377-380.
  16. Hilsenhoff W.L. 1991: Comparison of bottle traps with a d-frame net for collecting adults and larvae of Dytiscidae and Hydrophilidae (Coleoptera). - Coleopt. Bull. 45: 143-146.
  17. Hyvönen T. & Nummi P. 2000: Activity traps and the corer: complementary methods for sampling aquatic invertebrates. - Hydrobiologia 432: 121-125. Go to original source...
  18. Koese B. & Cuppen J. 2006: Sampling methods for Graphoderus bilineatus (Coleoptera: Dytiscidae). - Ned. Faun. Meded. 24: 41-48.
  19. Jurado G.B., Masterson M., Harrington R. & Kelly-Quinn M. 2008: Evaluation of sampling methods for macroinvertebrate biodiversity estimation in heavily vegetated ponds. - Hydrobiologia 597: 97-107. Go to original source...
  20. Klečka J. & Boukal D.S. 2011: Lazy ecologist's guide to water beetle diversity: Which sampling methods are the best? - Ecol. Indicat. 11: 500-508. Go to original source...
  21. Larson D.J., Alarie Y. & Roughley R.E. 2000: Predaceous Diving Beetles (Coleoptera: Dytiscidae) of the Nearctic Region, with Emphasis on the Fauna of Canada and Alaska. NRC Research Press, Ottawa, 982 pp.
  22. Lock K., Adriaens T., van de Meutter F. & Goethals P. 2013: Effect of water quality on waterbugs (Hemiptera: Gerromorpha & Nepomorpha) in Flanders (Belgium): results from a large-scale field survey. - Ann. Limnol. / Int. J. Limnol. 49: 121-128. Go to original source...
  23. Lundkvist E., Landin J. & Milberg P. 2001: Diving beetle (Dytiscidae) assemblages along environmental gradients in an agricultural landscape in southeastern Sweden. - Wetlands 21: 48-58. Go to original source...
  24. Macan T.T. 1976: A Revised Key to the British Water Bugs (Hemiptera, Heteroptera) with Nnotes on their Ecology. 2nd ed. Scientific Publication of the Freshwater Biological Association No. 16, 74 pp.
  25. Nilsson A.N. 1996: Aquatic Insects of North Europe, a Taxonomic Handbook. Vol. 1. Apollo Books, Strenstrup, pp. 76-194.
  26. Nilsson A.N. & Holmen M. 1995: The Aquatic Adephaga (Coleoptera) of Fennoscandia and Denmark. II. Dytiscidae. Fauna Entomologica Scandinavica 32. E.J. Brill, Leiden, New York, Köln, 192 pp.
  27. Nilsson A.N. & Söderberg H. 1996: Abundance and species richness patterns of diving beetles (Coleoptera, Dytiscidae) from exposed and protected sites in 98 northern Swedish lakes. - Hydrobiologia 321: 83-88. Go to original source...
  28. Nilsson A.N. & Svensson B.W. 1994: Dytiscid predators and culicid prey in two boreal snowmelt pools differing in temperature and duration. - Ann. Zool. Fenn. 31: 365-376.
  29. Nilsson A.N. & Svensson B.W. 1995: Assemblages of dytiscid predators and culicid prey in relation to environmental factors in natural and clear-cut boreal swamp forest pools. - Hydrobiologia 308: 183-196. Go to original source...
  30. Nilsson A.N., Elmberg J. & Sjoberg K. 1994: Abundance and species richness patterns of predaceous diving beetles (Coleoptera, Dytiscidae) in Swedish lakes. - J. Biogeogr. 21: 197-206. Go to original source...
  31. Ortmann-Ajkai A. & Kalman Z. 2011: Aquatic beetle and bug assemblages of standing waters with different succesional stages in the floodplain of Drava. - Acta Biol. Debr. Oecol. Hung. 26: 161-178.
  32. Papáček M. 2001: Small aquatic and ripicolous bugs (Heteroptera: Nepomorpha) as predators and prey: The question of economic importance. - Eur. J. Entomol. 98: 1-12. Go to original source...
  33. Ribera I., Foster G.N. & Holt W.V. 1997: Functional types of diving beetle (Coleoptera: Hygrobiidae and Dytiscidae), as identified by comparative swimming behaviour. - Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 61: 537-558. Go to original source...
  34. Ribera I., Vogler A.P. & Balke M. 2007: Phylogeny and diversification of diving beetles (Coleoptera: Dytiscidae). - Cladistics 24: 563-590. Go to original source...
  35. Rundle S.D., Foggo A., Choiseul V. & Bilton D.T. 2002: Are distribution patterns linked to dispersal mechanism? An investigation using pond invertebrate assemblages. - Freshw. Biol. 47: 1571-1581. Go to original source...
  36. Sánchez-Fernández D., Abellan P., Mellado A., Velasco J. & Millan A. 2006: Are water beetles good indicators of biodiversity in Mediterranean aquatic systems? The case of the Segura river basin (Spain). - Biodiv. Conserv. 15: 4507-4520. Go to original source...
  37. Schäfer M.L., Lundkvist E., Landin J., Persson T.Z. & Lundström J.O. 2006: Influence of landscape structure on mosquitoes (Diptera: Culicidae) and dytiscids (Coleoptera: Dytiscidae) at five spatial scales in Swedish wetlands. - Wetlands 26: 57-68. Go to original source...
  38. Schneider D.W. 1999: Influence of hydroperiod on invertebrate community structure. In Batzer D.P., Rader R.B. & Wissinger S.A. (eds): Invertebrates in Freshwater Wetlands of North America. Wiley, New York, pp. 299-318.
  39. Schneider D.W. & Frost T.M. 1996: Habitat duration and community structure in temporary ponds. - J. North Am. Benthol. Soc. 15: 64-86. Go to original source...
  40. StatSoft Inc. 2016: STATISTICA - Data Analysis Software System. Ver. 10. URL: www.statsoft.com.
  41. Ter Braak C.J.F & ©milauer P. 2002: CANOCO Reference Manual and CanoDraw for Windows User's Guide: Software for Canonical Community Ordination (Ver. 4.5). Microcomputer Power, Itaca, 500 pp.
  42. Thomas Z., Persson V., Lundström O.J., Petersson E. & Landin J. 2009: Diving beetle assemblages of flooded wetlands in relation to time, wetland type and Bti-based mosquito control. - Hydrobiologia 635: 189-203. Go to original source...
  43. Turić N., Merdić E., Hackenberger K.B., Jeličić ®., Vignjević G. & Csabai Z. 2012: Structure of aquatic assemblages of Coleoptera and Heteroptera in relation to habitat type and flood dynamic structure. - Aquat. Insect / Int. J. Freshw. Entomol. 34: 189-205. Go to original source...
  44. Turić N., Temunović M., Radović A., Vignjević G., Sudarić Bogojević M. & Merdić E. 2015: Flood pulse drive the temporal dynamics of assemblages of aquatic insects (Heteroptera and Coleoptera) in a temperate floodplain. - Freshw. Biol. 60: 2051-2065. Go to original source...
  45. Turner A.M. & Trexler J.C. 1997: Sampling aquatic invertebrates from marshes: Evaluating the options. - J. North Am. Benthol. Soc. 16: 694-709. Go to original source...
  46. Verdonschot R.C.M. 2010: Optimizing the use of activity traps for aquatic biodiversity studies. - J. North Am. Benthol. Soc. 29: 1228-1240. Go to original source...
  47. Wilcox C. 2001: Habitat size and isolation affect colonization of seasonal wetlands by predatory aquatic insects. - Israel J. Zool. 47: 459-475. Go to original source...
  48. Williams P.H. 1996: Measuring biodiversity value. - World Conserv. 1: 12-14.