Coleopterists Society

Comparison of Bottle Traps with a D-Frame Net for Collecting Adults and Larvae of Dytiscidae
and Hydrophilidae (Coleoptera)
Author(s): William L. Hilsenhoff
Source: The Coleopterists Bulletin, Vol. 45, No. 2 (Jun., 1991), pp. 143-146
Published by: Coleopterists Society
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4008693
Accessed: 03-12-2015 07:50 UTC

REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/4008693?seq=1&cid=pdf-reference#references_tab_contents

You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/
info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content
in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.
For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Coleopterists Society is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Coleopterists Bulletin.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 140.112.154.105 on Thu, 03 Dec 2015 07:50:50 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
The ColeopteristsBulletin,45(2):143-146. 1991.

COMPARISON OF BOTTLE TRAPS WITH A D-FRAME NET

FOR COLLECTING ADULTS AND LARVAE OF DYTISCIDAE
AND HYDROPHILIDAE (COLEOPTERA)l

WILLIAM L. HiisENHoFF

Department of Entomology, University of Wisconsin,

Madison, WI 53706, U.S.A.

ABSTRACT

Collectionsof adultsand larvaeof Dytiscidaeand Hydrophilidaefrom shallowlentic

habitatswere made with bottle trapsand a D-framenet. Comparisonof the two sampling
methods showed that adults in most generaof Dytiscidae, larvae of actively swimming
Dytiscidae,adultHydrophilidaein the subfamilyHydrophilinae,and larvaeof Hydrophi-
lus and Berosuswere more effectivelycollected with bottle traps. A D-frame net more
effectivelycollected adults and larvae of Hydrophilidaein other genera,adults of very
small Dytiscidae (Desmopachria, Liodessus, Uvarus), and larvae of Dytiscidae that swim
poorly.

Bottle traps (Hilsenhoff 1987) were employed in the summer of 1989 pri-
marily to capture adults of Ilybius, Graphoderus, and other Dytiscidae from
areas of western and northern Wisconsin that previously had not been ade-
quately sampled during the summer months. At 80 sampling sites beetles were
also collected with a D-frame aquatic net to provide a direct comparison of
the effectiveness of traps and a net for capturing adults and larvae of Dytiscidae
and Hydrophilidae. These samples corroborated the effectiveness of traps for
capturing adult Dytiscidae as shown in a previous study (Hilsenhoff 1987), and
showed that larvae of many dytiscid genera and adults and/or larvae of certain
genera of Hydrophilidae were also efficiently captured by bottle traps. Most of
the 80 sites were sampled in June (51), 23 were sampled in mid-July, and six
were sampled in early-August.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Samples were collected primarily from marshes and small ponds. At each
site a D-frame aquatic net (Ward's) was used to collect in shallow vegetated
areas by pushing or sweeping the net through the vegetation and bottom debris
until the net was about one-third full of debris. On the hood of a car the net
was emptied onto a half-inch (12 mm) mesh screen over a large enamel pan
and allowed to remain over the pan for a few minutes while three bottle traps
(Hilsenhoff 1987) were assembled. Beetles and beetle larvae that had dropped
through the screen were then removed and preserved in 70% ethanol and the
screen containing the sample was replaced over the pan. The bottle traps were
then completely filled with water and submerged in shallow vegetated areas of
the pond; this usually took about 10 minutes. Additional specimens were then
removed from the pan, the screen and sample were replaced on the pan, and

' Research supportedby the College of Agriculturaland Life Sciences, University of Wisconsin-
Madison.

143

This content downloaded from 140.112.154.105 on Thu, 03 Dec 2015 07:50:50 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
144 THE COLEOPTERISTS BULLETIN 45(2), 1991

Table 1. Adult and larval Dytiscidae and Hydrophilidae most frequently collected
by traps or with a net, with the percent and total number collected.

Per- Num- Per- Num-

Collected by traps cent ber' Collected with net cent ber'
DYnscMAE ADuLTs
Agabetes acuductus Liodessus, 2 spp. 81 262
Harris 100 4 Uvarus granarius
Colymbetes, 2 spp. 100 89 (Aube) 77 8
Dytiscus, 5 spp. 100 109 Desmopachria convexa
Hydrovatus pustulatus (Aube) 75 65
Motschulsky 100 4
Matus bicarinatus (Say) 100 5
Sanfilippodytes paugus
(Fall) 100 I
Hydaticus, 2 spp. 99 336
Agabus, 13 spp. 95 263
Ilybius, 6 spp. 92 100
Acilius, 3 spp. 89 137
Graphoderus, 5 spp. 88 61
Laccornis, 2 spp. 87 70
Hydroporus, 9 medium
to large spp. 81 744
Hygrotus, 11 spp. 77 1,555
Laccophilus, 4 spp. 61 456
Coptotomus, 2 spp. 59 35
Hydroporus, 5 small
spp. 59 1,112
Neoporus undulatus
(Say) 58 285
Rhantus, 4 spp. 56 71
DYTiscAIAELARvAE
Colymbetes larvae 100 4 Matus larvae 100 2
Dytiscus larvae 93 114 Laccophilus larvae 79 389
Acilius larvae 91 44 Hydroporinae larvae 76 70
Graphoderus larvae 80 27 Rhantus larvae 58 32
Hydaticus larvae 80 27 Agabus larvae 52 20
Coptotomus larvae 73 59
HYDROPHILIDAE
ADULTS
Hydrophilus triangu- Paracymus subcupreus
laris Say 100 8 (Say) 100 5
Hydrochara, 4 spp. 98 332 Enochrus, 5 spp. 98 304
Tropisternus, 5 spp. 78 407 Helophorus, 10 spp. 98 374
Hydrochus, 6 spp. 96 71
Anacaena limbata
(Fabricius) 95 53
Helocombus bifidus
(LeConte) 80 3
Cymbiodyta, 3 spp. 71 9
Berosus, 3 spp. 68 45
Hydrobius fuscipes
(Linnaeus) 57 30

This content downloaded from 140.112.154.105 on Thu, 03 Dec 2015 07:50:50 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 THE COLEOPTERISTS BULLETIN 45(2), 1991 145

Table 1. Continued.

Per- Num- Per- Num-

Collectedby traps cent ber' Collectedwith net cent ber'
HYDROPHILIDAELARVAE
Hydrophiluslarvae 94 30 Hydrobiuslarvae 100 2
Berosuslarvae 86 45 Tropisternuslarvae 95 100
Hydrocharalarvae 65 46
The numberis the actualnumbercollected.The numberin net sampleswasdoubledonly to compare
the percentcapturedin trapswith the percentcapturedwith a net.

the pan was placed in the vehicle. Upon reaching the next sampling site, or
within one-half hour, additional insects that had crawled from the debris were
removed and preserved and the sample was discarded. A least one-half hour
was allowed for beetles to crawl out of the debris. After three days (two days
for 20 sites) the traps were removed and beetles and beetle larvae from the
traps were preserved. Beetle larvae that were at least partly decomposed were
discarded and not counted; rarely were more than 30% of the larvae decom-
posed. Adult beetles were identified to species and larvae were identified to
genus. The number of species (adults) and genera (larvae) found in both net
and traps, only in traps, and only in the net was tabulated for each sample.

RESULTSAND DIscussION
When using traps to collect beetles a return trip to each site is necessary
and the total time spent at each site is about twice as great as required to collect
and process a net sample. It was assumed that if an equal amount of time had
been spent collecting with a net, twice as many insects would have been col-
lected. Therefore, the number of insects in net samples was doubled for the
purpose of determining the percent of total insects captured in traps or with a
net as summarized in Table 1. Because larger species of Dytiscidae tended to
be more frequently collected in traps than smaller species (Hilsenhoff 1987),
species in three large genera that have species that differ greatly in size (Hy-
droporus, Hygrotus, Enochrus) were originally divided into groups by size.
However, only in Hydroporus did the percent captured in traps differ between
size groups by more than 5%, therefore Hygrotus and Enochrus are not divided
into groups in Table 1.
Bottle traps (Table 1) were more effective for capturing adults of most species
of Dytiscidae and larvae of several genera of Dytiscidae, especially those of
Dytiscinae. They were also more effective for collecting Hydrophilidae adults
in the subfamily Hydrophilinae and the larvae of Hydrophilus and Berosus.
Nets (Table 1) were more effective for capturing adults in most genera of
Hydrophilidae, larvae of Hydrophilidae except those mentioned above, larvae
of Dytiscidae that are not well adapted for swimming, and small adult Dytis-
cidae (Desmopachria, Liodessus, Uvarus).
The percentages of larger dytiscids captured in traps (Table 1) were very
similar to percentages reported in a previous study (Hilsenhoff 1987), but
smaller species (Laccophilus, Hydroporus, Hydrovatus, Hygrotus, Neoporus,
Liodessus, Desmopachria, and Uvarus) were much more abundant in the pres-
ent traps than in those of the earlier study. In the earlier study the majority of
collections were made in March and April when the water was cold, permitting

This content downloaded from 140.112.154.105 on Thu, 03 Dec 2015 07:50:50 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
146 THE COLEOPTERISTS BULLETIN 45(2), 1991

beetles captured in traps to live for several days instead of dying within a few
hours. In the previous springtime study, predation on smaller beetles by larger
ones, a possible tendency for small beetles to avoid traps containing many
potential predators, and the greater ability of smaller beetles to escape from
bottle traps (unpublished laboratory data) could account for the higher per-
centage of small dytiscids in traps in this summertime study.
The present study was initiated June 5, after most larvae had completed
development and pupated. This accounts for the small numbers of larvae
collected in most genera and the absence of larvae in several other genera.
Most of the larvae were collected in June. The study was also initiated after
overwintering adults in most genera had died, but by late June newly emerged
adults in many genera were often collected. The average number of taxa (species
of adults, genera of larvae) collected at each site was 19.1, with 57% only in
trap samples, 25% only in net samples, and 17% in both net and trap samples.
This comparison is biased in favor of trap samples because twice as much time
was expended in collecting them. With a comparable effort results would un-
doubtedly be more similar to the 25% in both net and trap samples and equal
numbers exclusively in net or trap samples reported by Hilsenhoff and Tracy
(1985). The results clearly show that in any faunal survey of adults or larvae
of Dytiscidae and Hydrophilidae both a net and traps should be used.

LITERATURECITED
HILSENHOFF, W. L. 1987. Effectiveness of bottle traps for collecting Dytiscidae (Co-
leoptera). Coleopts Bull. 41:377-380.
, AND B. H. TRAcy. 1985. Techniques for collecting water beetles from lentic
habitats. Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Philadelphia 137:8-1 1.
(Received 20 November 1989; accepted28 September1990)

LITERATURE NOTICES
ALLSOPP,P. G. 1990. Sexual dimorphism in the adult antennae of Antitrogus parvulus
Britton and Lepidiota negatoria Blackbum (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae: Melolon-
thinae). J. Aust. Ent. Soc. 29:261-266.
WANG, Q., J. S. Li, W. Y. ZENG, AND X. M. YIN. 1991. Sex recognitionby males and
evidence for a female sex pheromone in Paraglenea fortunei (Coleoptera: Cer-
ambycidae). Ann. Ent. Soc. Am. 84:107-110.
BREWER, G. S. 1991. Oviposition and larval bionomics of two weevils (Coleoptera:
Curculionidae) on sunflower. Ann. Ent. Soc. Am. 84:67-71.
LE BLANC,R. 1990. Dimorphisme sexuel chez les Plusiotis (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae:
Rutelinae). Fabreries 15:77-79.
MARTINS, U. R., Y M. H. M. GALILEO. 1990. Notas sobre Calliini (Coleoptera,Cer-
ambycidae, Lamiinae). II. Descrigcio de tres generos novos. Rev. Bras. Ent. 34:
475-480.
GALILEO, M. H. M., E U. R. MARTINS. 1990. Notas sobre Calliini (Colepotera, Cer-
ambycidae, Lamiinae). I. Revisao do genero Graminea Thomson, 1864 e descrigcio
de novos tixons. Rev. Bras. Ent. 34:467-474.
MAGNO, P. R., E M. A. MoNNt. 1990. Genero Eumimesis Bates, 1866, duas novas
especies e chave para identificagao (Coleoptera, Cerambycidae, Lamiinae, Gryl-
licini). Rev. Bras. Ent. 34:453-456.
LANTERI, A. A. 1990. Revisi6n sistematica del genero Priocyphus Hustache 1939 y
creaci6n de los generos Priocyphopsis y Lamprocyphopsis (Coleoptera, Curcu-
lionidae). Rev. Bras. Ent. 34:403-422.
LANTERI, A. A. 1990. Revisi6n sistematica del genero Cyrtomon Sch6nherr (Coleoptera,
Curculionidae). Rev. Bras. Ent. 34:387-402.

This content downloaded from 140.112.154.105 on Thu, 03 Dec 2015 07:50:50 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions