Trunk window trapping: An effective technique for sampling tropical saproxylic beetles

12 Pages·2000·3.3 MB·English

by  Simon J Grove

TRUNK WINDOWTRAPPING: AN EFFECTIVE TECHNIQUE FOR SAMPLING
TROPICAL SAPROXYLIC BEETLES
SIMON GROVE
J.
Grove,S.J.2000 1231:Trunkwindowtrapping:aneffectivetechniqueforsamplingtropical
saproxylic beetles. Memoirs ofthe OueenslandMuseum 46 (1): 149-160. Brisbane. ISSN
0079-8835.
Three techniques for trapping saproxylic (dead wood associated) beetles are compared,
based on a study in an old-growth Australian lowland tropical rainforest. Trunk window
traps,whicharesmall flightintercepttrapsmountedonthesidesofdeadtrees,arethemost
efficient,andarehighlyrecommendedforstudieswherehighbetween-trapvariabilityisnot
a major concern. Ground-based flight intercept traps collect fewer species, and sample a
different, perhaps less substrate-specific, set of species. They are, however, useful for
between-sitecomparisons sincethey have lowerbetween-trapvariability. Both techniques
arecheapandsimpletooperate. Logemergencetrapsaretheleastefficientandtheircostin
time,effortandexpenseishigh.Theydo,however,sampleafewcrypticspeciesnotreadily
sampled by other means. All three techniques would be desirable for a comprehensive
survey,butgiventime/costconstraints,trunkwindowtrapsalonearerecommended.Despite
a combined sampling intensity in this study equivalent tol8 trap-years, the yield of329
species from 59 traps may represent little more than half of the species potentially
sampleablebythesemeans.Thuswhichevermethodischosen,andwhatevertheobjective,it
isadvisabletooperatemultipletrapscontinuouslyoverseveralmonthsduringtheseasonof
insectactivity. saproxylic, Coleoptera, rainforest,Queensland, sampling, insecttrap.
Simon J. Grove. Rainforest CRC. James Cook University. PO Box 6811. Cairns 4870.
Australia (email:[email protected]); received20Nov 1999.
This paper compares a relatively new insect or refute this with regard to the world's tropical
sampling technique, trunk window (TW) forests, where insect species richness is vast
trapping, with the more established techniques (Grove & Stork, 2000) and where exploitation
using ground-based flight intercept (GFIT) and rates seem set to escalate. There is thus a critical
log emergence (LE) traps. All three techniques need forinformation on how forest management
were used specifically to sample saproxylic can be made ecologically sustainable, especially
beetles, as part ofa wider investigation into the for saproxylic insects (Grove & Stork, 1999;
long-term impacts of logging in tropical Grove & Tucker, 2000).
rainforests on these organisms (to be reported MATERIALS AND METHODS
elsewhere). The Daintree lowlands ofnortheast
Queenslandwere chosen forthis study since the STUDY AREA. The research took place in the
region is relatively accessible, has a varied Daintree lowlands of northeast Queensland, a
land-use history, and a fairly well-documented regionwithcontinuous lowland rainforestwhere
insect fauna (e.g. Monteith, 1985). areas ofold-growth, logged and regrowlh forest
exist in relatively close proximity. Within this
Saproxylic insects are those which depend on
dead wood or wood-decaying fungi for at least asirteeas,dsiafpfreroixnygliicn tbheeeitrlemsanwaegreemseanmtplhiesdtorayt.nTihnee
partoftheirlifecycle(Speight, 1989).Theyform samplingprogrammesdescribedhererefertoone
a dominant functional group in any wooded of these, Thompson Creek (16°06'31"S
environment. In temperate Europe, they are 145°26'25"E),4kmsouthofCapeTribulationon
pmeacnulyiarfloyrmseernlsyiticvoemtmoofnoresstpemcai—ensagneomwentra,rewi—th tahbeountor5th0e0amstefrrloymfotohteslAoupsetsraolfiManouCnatnoIplyemCmraannte,
sceonmteurieevseonfrfoergeisotnaulsleyanexdtainbcutse(Kiarsbya&resDurlatkeo,f pFalceixlimtye.soTphhiysllsivteinceofmoprreisstelsao(lTdr-agcreoywt&h,Wecbobm,-
w1o99u3l)d.sOuugrgesutndtehrasttmaundcihngthoefsfaomreestfuetcuoresyaswtaeimtss 1975), and lies at an altitude of40-120m.
saproxylicinsectswhereverforestsaresubjected SAMPLING PROGRAMME. Sampling took
toheavy, long-term exploitation. However,there placeoverthesummersof1997/98 and 1998/99.
is currently no information available to support GFITs were placed every 50m along a 400m
9
150 MEMOIRS OF THE QUEENSLAND MUSEUM
'internal transect', making a
total of 9 traps. The traps
operated for about 17 weeks
throughout the 1998 wet
sMeaayson7,. fTrhoem fJoalnluoawriyng10wetto moffmicfeoclldibpac
season,26TWtrapsand24LE
traps were erectedin the same
TW
area. Thenumberof traps
was limitedbytheavailability Woodenstake
of dead trees on which to
mountthem,whilethenumber
ofLEtrapswaslimitedbycTosWt Cl4ea0tcamcry\l4ic0pcamnel
and time constraints. The
traps operated for about 8
weeks, from November
1 / Z
1998 until January 16 1999. <T
Cyclone Rona destroyedmost oPoouljyfphrcoopnytlaeinneinpgla1stcicm
ofthem on February 11 1999, depthpropyleneglycol
shortly before the next series
of samples was due for
collection. The LE traps Draitaetholewithmesh
operated for about 24 weeks,
from November 19 1998 until FIG. 1. Ground-based flight intercepttrap.
May 5 1999, though several
were destroyedby Cyclone Rona. high cord stretched lengthwise above the trap
betweentwoconvenienttreesanditsfourcorners
TRAP DESIGN. Ground-basedFlightIntercept aretiedwithcordtonearbysaplings, etc. Such a
Traps. Flight intercept traps consist ofa vertical trap can operate for a month ormore before the
barriertoinsect flightthatisconsideredinvisible fluid needs augmenting. At clearing, the fluid is
to the insect. On hittingthe barrier, most beetles strainedthroughafine,nylonteastrainerandthe
dropdownorattempttocircumventthebarrierby catch transferredto 70% ethanol.
flying downwards. A collecting vessel placed
beneath the barrier will catch many of these. Trunk Window Traps. The concept of a flight
intercept trap mounted above ground-level
GHiFlIl,Ts19h9a3v)esibneceenthweiidrefliyrstusuesediinnNAourstthraAlmiaer(ie.cga. pre-dates that ofGFITs (Chapman & Kinghorn,
(Peck & Davies, 1980). The design used in this 1955). Aerial flight intercept traps have been
ssrMtqeouugndautyrleeai(rtFlphiyagn.(epelem1r)pso.lifsoc3yaomemsdmmc.a)ilc.nleedaIt-trhdecoaowcnWnrsyeilvtsietcrssTciroloofnapmaiopcf4es0dtchbaamytt OafiunknrtdlteahrHnceierdlpldt&et&vreaHplaCsogepavresamdTrakiW(n,1At9u(r91sa49tTp)9srW7asf)lpi.ireasctiKbfaeyiimclaBpalallso(ys1yet9eot9ds3()a1fm9laip8gln8hed)t
each end with large foldback office clips to two saproxylic insects. The trap design used in
vertical wooden stakes (25mm square section) this study applies their principles by modifying
drivenintotheground.Theacrylicpanelisraised the standard GFIT so that it can be mou&nted on
above the groundand its loweredge rests across the side ofa standingdead tree (Figs 2 3).
TW
the top of a 5 litre polypropylene ice-cream Inthe trap,thewoodensupportstakeforms
container (34cm long, 16cm wide, 12cm high) an inverted T-shape, the upright length being
positionedonthegroundlengthwaysbetweenthe 45cm long and the cross-piece 15cm. A groove
two stakes. Propylene glycol is added to each cut into the upright stake receives the acrylic
containerascollecting/preservative fluid. Thisis panel. Three loose-fitting nails are fed through
used in preference to ethylene glycol because of small holes in one side ofthe upright stake and
reducedvertebratetoxicity(Hall, 1991).Thetrap lodge in similarly sized and spaced holes along
is protected from rain and debris by a roof of one edge ofthe acrylic panel, thus holding the
0.2mm clearpolythene riggedtentwise above it, panelinplace.Thetrapisanchoredtothetreeby
suchthattheloweredgesarenolowerthatthetop an8cmnail whichpassesthroughanangledhole
oftheacrylicpanel.Thisroofisdrapedovera lm in the top ofthe vertical stake and is hammered
TRUNKWINDOW INSECTTRAPPING 151
advantage over other
25pimecme,wwoimlhicgnrosouvkeftoannivleeirvoscs materials of maintaining the
iharceieylsimealplanreeltaainndinwginlahillsinakn'islfounre microclimate inside similarto
largeranehoeinenail outside, since it is permeable
to air and moisture. The final
trap dimensions are roughly
150cm long, 80cm wide, and
80cm high. Wood is inserted
or removed by means of a
sealable opening secured by
Clearacrylicpanel
velcro strips along one ofthe
lower lengths ofthe trap and
one ofthe adjacent sides; all
other seams are permanently
sewn closed. A sheet ofpoly-
^ittbookthroughhole propylene plastic laid on the
inacrylicpanel ground beforehand reduces
damage by roots, small
WooudnednersMiidvekofglluiepdto mammals and soil-living
invertebrates suchastermites.
iv.lypr<ipyleneplastic The trap is kept in shape by
Dialnngebolewithmesh lprrt,onpptyilie.-noenligiliyricioilip geaucyhinegndt.oAacwololoedcteinngshteakaed aatt
FIG.2. Specificationsoftrunkwindowtrap.
intothetreeatheadheight.Thecoinersofthelip
of one end of the polypropylene container are
clipped to the cross-piece using two foldback
officeclips.Theotherendisattachedtotheouter
corner ofthe acrylic panel with a piece ofwire,
thebenttipofwhichfeeds intoasmallhole near
its corner. The containercan readily beremoved
foremptyingby unclippingthewireandclips. A
roofofpolythenesheetingisriggedupabovethe
trap, again using cord tied at four corners and
withamaintaut 'strut'mimingalongtheaxis of
the trap from the tree-trunk to a nearby tree. To
divert water running down the tree-trunk, the
polytheneisaffixedtothetreeatkeypointsusing
smallnailsandplasticwashers. Preservativeand
service procedures are as described for the
ground-based FIT.
Log Emergence Traps. The LE (Fig. 4) is a
modified version of one described by Owen
(1989). It consists of an enclosed tent-like
structureintowhichastandardvolume(0.5m )of
sawn-updeadwoodderivedfromthetargetlogis
placed. Emerginginsects head towardsthe light,
where theironly exit is through two tubes in the
topmost corners of the tent, leading into
collectingjars. The main tent material is black
spun polypropylene mulch-matting, as
recommended by Uffen (1998), with pore-size
smaller than the smallest beetle. It has the FIG. 3. Trunk windowtrap, insitu.
152 MEMOIRS OF THE QUEENSLAND MUSEUM
Colletlinghead Tentmadefromspun Resealablcflapfor Shortlengthofclear
comprisingtwo polypropylenemulchmatting. insertinglogs siliconerubbertubing
clearplasticpols totallyenclosedapartfromexit (20mminternal
gluedend-to-end holesatlopcorners diameter)connecting
bytherimsof lentexitholeto
theirhollowedout collectinghead
lids,with2cm
depthof50%
propyleneglycol
FIG.4. Logemergencetrap.
each end comprises a clear plastic funnel glued help of other entomologists in Australia and
intothetopcornerofthemaintent,connectedby overseas. Voucher specimens are lodged at the
a short length of20mm diametersilicone rubber Queensland Museum (Brisbane), James Cook
tubingtoan inverted300mlplastic specimenjar, University (Cairns), Department of Primary
via a hole near its base (i.e. the top). A second Industries(Mareeba)andtheAustralianNational
specimenjar,fittedbelowthisandattachedbythe Insect Collection (Canberra).
rimsoftwojarlidsglued back-to-back, servesas
thecollectingvessel,using50%propyleneglycol STATISTICAL ANALYSIS. Species diversity
as the collecting and preserving fluid. The trap and community similarity statistics were
can operate for a month or more at a time; the cEasltciumlaatteesd (uCsoilnwgeltlh,e 1c9o9m7p)utaenrd pPrCog-rOaRmDs
nloewweronjea.r is then unscrewed and replaced with a (McCune & Mefford, 1999).
RESULTS
SPECIES IDENTIFICATION. Potentially
saproxylic beetles were removed from the The combined sampling intensity from all 59
samples and initially i&dentified to the level of traps represents the equivalent of 18 trap-years.
morphospecies(Oliver Beattie, 1996).Beetles Together, the three techniques produced 3399
were regarded as saproxylic ifso suggested by specimens belonging to 329 species or
their habitat associations recorded in the liter- morphospecies(Appendix 1).Table 1 givessome
ature or during this study. Most Staphylinoidea, speciesrichnessandcompositionalattributesfor
Nitidulidae and a few other difficult or poorly thethree techniques.
known groups were discounted since they were
consideredtaxonomicallyintractableand/ortheir GENERAL TRAPPING EFFICIENCY. The
status as saproxylic beetles could not be three techniques differ markedly in the total
ascertained. For the remainder, identification to numbers of species sampled, although the
family and sub-family level was readily differences in sampling intensity and duration
accomplished using standard works (Lawrence must be borne in mind. At the level ofsampling
& TW
Britton, 1994). Tentative identification to effortused, trapsfarebest,with233 species,
species proved feasible for only about athird of representing 71% of the total species list
these.Keypublications includeSlipinski(1988); sampled. LE traps sample 137 species (42%),
Slipinski & Lawrence (1997); Calder, (1996); whileGFlTsperform leastwellwith 127 species
Matthews(1984, 1985, 1987, 1992);Zimmerman (39%). When species richness is standardised to
(1991, 1992, 1993a, 1993b, 1994) and Dibb 9 traps using the Coleman richness expectation
(1938). Many species were identified with the (based on a process similar to rarefaction
1
TRUNK WINDOW INSECTTRAPPING
152
TABLE 1. Species richness and compositional attributes for trunk window (TW), log emergence (LE) and
ground-based flight intercept(GFIT)trapsamplingprogrammesatThompsonCreek. N =329species.
TW(N=26> LE(N=24) GFITfN=9)
Totalno.ofspecies 233 137 127
No.ofspeciesaspercentageofgrandtotal 71 42 39
Colemanrichnessexpectationfor9randomtraps 142 85 127
Colemanrichnessexpectationfor9randomtrapsaspercentageofgrandtotal 43 26 39
Meanno.ofspeciespertrap 8.6 5.7 14.1
Meanno.ofspeciespertrap-week 1.1 0.2 0.8
%ofspeciesrepresentedbysingletons 46 46 56
Abundance-basedCoverageEstimator(ACE) 411 225 228
No.ofspeciesaspercentageofACE 57 61 56
No.ofspeciesuniquetosampling technique 111 23 39
Multi-ResponsePermutationProceduresaverageEuclideandistanceamongstsamples 1 i 2.2 2.8
[Coleman, 1981]), TW traps still perform best either26 LEtraps(225 speciesor61% so far), or
(142 species, or 43% of the total species 9 GFITs (228 species or 56% so far).
sampled), GFITs are not farbehind (127 species
or39%), while LE traps performmuch less well TRAPSELECTIVITY. The degree towhich the
(85 species or 26%). Standardising to one trap different techniques overlap in the species they
tsHpeuhorgawgnetervsaeTtprsWc,tohGmaFtptrIaaGTrpFsesI.dwTetsWoreh8p.ees6ranffmooprrdlmiTifnWbfgeesfratoenrnd(tm154u..sc71ahfmsoplproelLnciEign)eeg.sr sescfpoafemmecpcpiatelirseveesnnoeostfwsif.techraTsujWguhsfttturrab3tpy9sheasorgptaehiicennirsefsiatrgeechcahtbnueisgitqh,nuttewosio.tnthlThyh1eii1isrn
durationsaretakeniTntWoaccountbystandardising GFITs and a mere 23 caught only in LE traps. In
to one trap-week, traps perform best (1.1 terms of overall similarity in species
speciespertrap-week)comparedto0.8 forGFIT composition, a principal components analysis
and only 0.2 for LE. This is perhaps an unfair (PCA,Fig.6)showsthatthethreetechniquesare
comparison since it does not take into account largely separable by the assemblages ofspecies
different intrinsic rates ofspecies accumulation they sample, so all are selective to some extent.
and between-trap heterogeneity, especially for Thereisasmallamountofoverlapbetweensome
LE traps since they sample the fauna present in TW and LE trap samples, while GFIT samples
dead wood at the time that the trap was erected, occupy a completely separate part of the
with no opportunity for colonisation by further ordination space.
species.
Randomisedspeciesaccumulationcurves(Fig. TRAP SAMPLE HETEROGENEITY. Within-
5) suggest that no technique is yet close to technique heterogeneity was investigated using
capturingthe full rangeofsampleable species. A the Multi-Response Permutation Procedures
largeproportionofspeciesinallthreetechniques (MRPP) running in PC-ORD, employing the
occur as singletons, ranging from 46% for TW recommended Euclidean distance measure and
and LEtrapsto56% forground-basedFITs.This n/sum (n) weighting of groups. MRPP is a
suggests that there are many more species that non-parametric procedure whose primary use is
haveyetto be sampled because oftheirrarity or for testing the hypothesis of no difference
their cryptic nature. Many statistical methods between two or more groups ofentities (in this
existtoestimatetotal speciesrichnessbyextrap- casesamplingtechniques).Ofparticularusehere
olating from these curves or their underlying is that MRPP also reports the average Euclidean
data.Arecentlydevisedandpromisingstatisticis distance between members of each group. For
the abundance-based coverage estimator (ACE, TW, this is 3.1, for LE 2.2 and for GFIT 2.8. In
Chao, Ma& Yang, 1993; Chazdon, 1996). ACE other words, TW samples are the most
predicts notional 'total' species richness heterogeneous (high bctween-trap variability),
attainable using 24 TW traps as 411 species LE samples the most homogeneous (low
(suggesting57%coverageso far),amuchhigher between-trap variability), and GFIT samples
number than predicted to be attainable using intermediate.
154 MEMOIRS OF THE QUEENSLAND MUSEUM
cP
2
1
&
7S?~<&X*>#^.OO o o
©
Numberoltraps 20 25 30 © o
O TW
FItGh.et5h.reReansadmopmliisnegdtescphenciiqesueas,ccbuamsueldatoinotnotcaulrnvuemsbfeorr A LE
of traps at Thompson Creek. Note that different GFIT
techniques used different numbers oftraps: 26 for
trunkwindow(TW);24forlogemergence(LE);9for FIG6.Ordinationplot(firsttwoaxes)fromaprincipal
ground-basedflightintercepttraps(GFIT).Notealso components analysis (variance-covariance, on
thatthecurvesdonotprovideadirectmeasureoftrap logio+1 transformed abundance data) ofsaproxylic
efficiency since individual traps in different beetles sampled using trunk window (TW), log
techniques were sampling for different lengths of emergence (LE) and ground-based flight intercept
time. (GFIT)trapsatThompson Creek.N = 329species.
DISCUSSION morethanothertechniques,butisgenerallymore
similar to that of LE trap samples than GFITs.
This suggests that they are effective at sampling
Trapping efficiency is a key consideration for thefaunaofthedeadstandingtreesonwhichthey
mosttypesofinsectsurvey(Muirhead-Thomson, are mounted. All these attributes imply that TW
1991). The definition ofefficiency depends on trapsrepresentavaluabletechniqueforsampling
the objective ofthe study. Where the aim is to saproxylicbeetleswheretheobjectiveofstudyis
collectasmanyspeciesaspossible,asefficiently either a thorough species inventory or a
as possible, the best strategy is to select a comparison of different substrates (e.g. dead
technique, or combination of techniques, that
treesversus livingtrees,ortreeswithshelf-fungi
targets the species in question. Where the aim is versus trees without shelf-fungi). However, this
tocomparetwoormoresitesonthebasisoftheir substrate specificity andthe high rate ofspecies
species composition, it is more important that accumulationalsomakesthedesign lesssuitable
sampling effort be standardised. For both these
objectives, time and money are always further for a comparison of sites, since it would be
considerations. Given these considerations, how difficulttostandardisethelocationoftrapsunless
a sufficiently large pool ofdead standing trees
do thethree samplingtechniques compare'?
were available at each site.
TW
traps are cheap, simple and robust under
normal (non-cyclone) rainforest conditions. GFITs are cheap to produce, easy to operate
They are very efficient at sampling saproxylic and durable under rainforest conditions.
beetles when mounted on standing dead tree Unfortunately,theyarenote—speciallyefficientat
trunks as in this study. Each trap produces more samplingsaproxylicbeetles atleast,notinthe
species than either ofthe other techniques, and design usedinthisstudy. Notonly dothey catch
TW
the rate at which species accumulate with fewerspeciespertrapthan traps,buttherate
successive traps is also higher, with little at which successive traps accumulate more
indicationofreachinganasymptoteevenwith24 species is also slightly lower, and rather few of
such traps in operation over eight weeks. Many these speciesarenotcaught byothertechniques.
speciesarecaughtbythistechniquebutnotbythe Those species which are uniquely caught by
others at comparable sampling intensities. The GFITs —may include less substrate-specific
species composition ofTW trap samples varies species which may account for their absence
TRUNK WINDOW INSECTTRAPPING 155
in other sample types. On the other hand, many CALDER, A.A. 1996. Click beetles: genera of
studies show that GFITs sample insects from a Australian Elatcridae (Coleoptera). Monographs
wideareaandarerelativelyimmunetotheeffects ofInvertebrateTaxonomy, Vol.2.
ofhabitat patchiness in their immedi—ate vicinity CHAO, A, MA, M.-C. & YANG, M.C.K. 1993.
(Siitonen, 1994; Okland, 1996) perhaps Stopping rules and estimation for recapture
picking up species dispersing from one habitat debusginuwith unequal failurerates. Biometrika
80: 193-201.
bpeattcwheent-otraanpothheert.erCogoeunpelietdy iwsitlhowtehre tfhaacnt TthaWt CHAPwMinAdNo,w tJ.raAp &forKfflyNinGgHOinRseNct,s. JT.hMe. C1a9n5a5d.iaAn
traps, thismakesthem suitable forstudieswhere Entomologist82:46-47.
the objective is to compare between sites using CIIAZDON, R.L. 1996. Spatial heterogeneity in
multiple traps persite. tropical forest structure: canopy palms as
Log emergence traps are expensive to make, landscape mosaics. Trends in Ecology and
thiamvee-croenlsautmivienlgytosehroercttalnidfestuoncdkewrithraliongfso,raensdt COLEEMvoAlNut,ionB.D11.(1)1:9881-.9.On random placement and
conditions. They sample relatively few species species-area relations. Mathematical Biosciences
54: 191-215.
pertrap, and few ofthese are not sampleable by COLWELL, R.K. 1997. EstimateS: statistical
other techniques. Thus log emergence traps estimationofspeciesrichnessandsharedspecies
cannot be recommended as a standard sampling from samples. Version 5.0. User's guide and
technique. They may still have a useful role if application published at: http://viceroy.eeb.
time and money are not limiting, and if the uconn.edu/estimates.
objectiveofthestudyiseitherathoroughspecies DIBB.J.R. 1938.SynopsisoftheAustralianPassalidae
inventoryortodeterminewhich speciesoccurin (Coleoptera). Transactions of the Royal
clearly delimited substrates. EntomologicalSocietyofLondon87(4): 103-24.
GROVE,S.J.& STORK,N.E. 1999.Theconservation
It is clear that no single technique will ofsaproxylicinsectsintropicalforests:aresearch
adequately sample the entire saproxylic fauna, agenda.Journal ofInsectConservation 3: 67-74.
buttrunk windowtraps come closesttodoingso 2000. An inordinate fondness for beetles.
and represent a sampling option that deserves InvertebrateTaxonomy 14(6): 733-739.
widerconsideration.Evenso,itisevidentthat,in GROVE,S.J &TUCKER,N.2000.Theimportanceof
tropical forests at least, large numbers oftraps mature timber habitat in forest management and
wouldberequiredoverseveralmonthsoryearsto restoration: what can insects tell us? Ecological
reach species saturation. Managementand Restoration 1,(1): 68-69.
HALL, D.W. 1991. The environmental hazard of
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ethylene glycol in insect pitfall traps. The
ColeopteristsBulletin45: 193-94.
Many thanks to GeoffMonteith, Nigel Stork, HILL,C.J. 1993.Thespeciescompositionandseasonal
Steve turton, Christine Herd and Hugh Spencer composition of an assemblage of tropical
for advice and support; to Ross Storey, John Australian dung beetles (Coleoptera:
Lawrence, Tom Weir, RolfOberprieler, Elwood Scarabaeidae: Scarabaeinae). Australian
C. Zimmerman, Andrew Calder, Jyrki Muona, HILL,EnCt.oJm&oloCgEisRtM2A0:K,12M1-.26.1997. A new design and
Barry Moore, Roger Beaver and others for somepreliminaryresultsforaflightintercepttrap
identification expertise; to Aida Leightou, to sample forest canopy arthropods. Australian
Brigitta Flick and a steady stream ofvolunteer Journal ofEntomology 36: 51-55.
fieldandlaboratoryassistants;andtoanonymous KA1LA, L. 1993. A new method for collecting
referees for comments on a previous version of quantitative samples of insects associated with
this paper. Funding for this research was decaying wood or wood fungi. Entomologica
providedbytheCooperativeResearchCentrefor Fennica4: 21-23.
Tropical Rainforest Ecology and Management, KIRBY,K.J.& DRAKE,CM.(eds). 1993.Deadwood
JamesCookUniversityandtheCapeTribulation matters: the ecology and conservation of
Tropical Research Station. saproxylic invertebrates in Britain. English
Nature Science 7. EnglishNature: Peterborough.
LITERATURE CITED LAWRENCE,J.F.& BRITTON,E.B. 1994.Australian
beetles. (Melbourne University Press:
BASSET, Y. 1988. A composite interception trap for Melbourne).
sampling arthropods in tree canopies. Journal of MATTHEWS, E.G 1984. A guide to the genera of
the Australian Entomological Society 27: beetles of South Australia, part 3. (South
213-319. Australian Museum: Adelaide).
'
156 MEMOIRS OF THE QUEENSLAND MUSEUM
1985. A guide to the genera of beetles of South comparison based on two sampling methods.
Australia, part 4. (South Australian Museum: AnnalesZoologici Fennici 31: 89-95.
Adelaide). SLIPINSKI, S.A. 1988. Revision of the Australian
1987. A guide to the genera of beetles of South Cerylonidae (Coleoptera: Cucujoidea). Annales
Australia, part 5. (South Australian Museum: Zoologici Polska Akademia Nauk, Instytut
Adelaide). Zoologii 30(5): 1-72.
1992. A guide to the genera of beetles of South SLIPINSKI,S.A.&LAWRENCE,J.F. 1997.Generaof
Australia, part 6. (South Australian Museum: Colydiinae (Coleoptera: Zopheridae) of the
Adelaide). Australo-Pacific Region. Annales Zoologici
McCUNE, B. & MEFFORD, M.J. 1999. PC-ORD. 47(3/4): 341-440.
MultivariateAnalysisofEcological Data, Ver.4. SPEIGHT, M.C.D. 1989. Saproxylic Invertebratesand
(MjMSoftwareDesign:GlenedenBeach,Oregon). theirConservation.NatureandEnvironmentSeries,
MONTEITH,GB. 1985.Altitudinaltransectstudiesat 42. (Council ofEurope: Strasbourg, France).
Cape Tribulation, North Queensland. VII. TRACEY, G.J. & WEBB, L.J. 1975. Vegetationofthe
Coleoptera and Hemiptera (Insecta). The humid tropical regions of North Queensland
MUIRQHueEeAnDsl-aTnHdONaMtSurOalNi,stR2.6(C1.-41)9:917.0-T8r0a.presponses UFFEN(1,:1R0.01090908.maSposmeansdolkietya)r.y(aCcuSlIeRaOte:sBarnidsbaanmeo).th
offlying insects: the influence oftrap design on reared with their parasites from apple logs in
captureefficiency.(Academic Press: London). Hertfordshire,andasimplewayoftrappingthem.
0KLAND,B. 1996.Acomparisonofthreemethodsof British Journal of Entomology and Natural
trappingsaproxylic beetles. European Journal of History 10:254-55.
Entomology93: 195-209. ZIMMERMAN. E.C. 1991.Australianweevils,Vol.5.
0KLAND, B. & HAGVAR, S. 1994. The insect fauna Colourplates 1-304.(CSIRO: Canberra).
associated with carpophores of the fungus 1992. Australian weevils, Vol. 6. Colour plates
Fomitopsis pinicola (Fr.) Karst. in a southern 305-632. (CSIRO: Canberra).
Norwegian spruce forest. Fauna Norvegica, 1993a. Australian weevils, Vol. 1. Anthribidae to
Series B41: 29-42. Attelabidae. (CSIRO: Canberra).
OLIVER, I. & BEATTIE, A.J. 1996. Invertebrate 1993b.Australianweevils,Vol.3.Rhynchophoridae,
morphospecies as surrogates for species: a case Erirhinidae, Amycterinae, Bibliography.
study. Conservation Biology 10: 99-109. (CSIRO: Canberra).
OWEN, J.A. 1989. An emergence trap for insects 1994. Australian weevils, Vol. 2. Brenthidae,
breeding in dead wood. British Journal of Eurhynchidae, Apionidae, Immature stages.
EntomologyandNatural History 2: 65-67. (CSIRO: Canberra).
PECK, S.B & DAV1ES, A.E. 1980. Collecting small
beetles with large-area 'window' traps. The
Coleopterist'sBulletin34: 237-39.
SIITONEN, J. 1994. Decaying wood and saproxylic
Coleoptera in two old spruce forests: a
APPENDIX
1
SpecieslistforsaproxylicbeetlesatThompsonCreek,fromthethreesamplingtechniques.GFIT=Ground-based
flight intercepttrap; LE=Logemergencetrap; TW=Trunkwindowtrap.
Species GFIT LE TW Species GFIT LE TW
RHYSODIDAE HISTER1DAE
Kaveingaabbreviate(Lea, 1904) 7 P(lBalta\c'lkobnuiranli.ts1t9e0r3r)areginae 5 4 2
(KGarvoeuivnegllaef,ro1n9t0a3li)s 1 5 7 Platvlomalussaucius
(Blackburn, 1903) I
RChAyzRoAdiBa1sDteAsEmirabitis(Lea, 1904) 11 16 3 Platysomasp.agg. 1 3 37
STAPHYLINIDAE
Ametroglossusater(Macleay, 1887) I PriochinismilesBernhauer 8 9
Pogonaghssus'sp.nov. 1 1 1 2 SCIRTIDAE
Perigonamfilahris(Macleay. 1871) 5 3 3
Scirtidavsp. 1 5
DoHcboctisstriataSchmidt-Goebel,
1846 1 1 Prionocyphonsp. 1 1
DistipsideraflavipesMacleay, 1887 1 1 LUCANIDAE
DistipsideraparvaMacleay, 1887 1 4 P(Dreoysrooplolceo,il1u8s70l)orresensis 8
TRUNKWINDOW INSECT TRAPPING 157
Species GFIT LE TW Species GFIT LE TW
PASSALIDAE ELATERIDAE (cont.)
A1u8l9a1cocy'clusfracticornisKuwerl, 7 26 8 Megapenthessp.03 2 3 1
Mastachilusuustralasicus Melanoxanthussp. 1 9 24 8
(Percheron, 1841) 2 4 3 Melanoxanthussp.03 ii 1
CERATOCANTHIDAE Melanoxanthussp.06 1 2
P(tGeesrtorrot,ho1c8h9a9e)tessimplex 1 1 12 Melanoxanthussp.07 n 2
SCARABAEIDAE Cardiotarsussp.01 1
DASuatsiotrnretayrle&oexoeHlnaoewgldlraoevnce,oin1cSt9io9nr6neay&Howden 2 31 PPCaaarrrdaaiccoaatrraddriisoouppshhoosprr.uuss02sspp..021 2104 111
GlycyphanapusillaBacchus, 1974 1 LYC1DAE
I1s8c6h0i)opsophawallacei(Thomson, 5 Triehalussp.01 1 2
CALL1RH1PIDAE Trichalussp.02 4 6
Ennometessp. 1 5 Triehalusater(Macleay, 1887) 1 1
Ennometessp.02 1 Cladophorussp.01? 1
PTILODACTYL1DAE XvlohanusClStadenus)ampliatus
Macleay, 1887 2 3
Ptilodactylasp. 1 116 12 25 CANTHARJDAE
Ptilodactylasp.02 54 37 12 Snhaerarthrumrubriceps
CHELONARIIDAE (Macleay,1887) 1
Chclunariitinmistralicii/ii1 ca. 1918 1 Heteromastixsp. 1 8 14
EUCNEMIDAE Heteromastixsp.02 1
Melanoscythonsp.01 1 JACOBSONIIDAE
Fornaxsp. 1 4 Gomyasp. 1 1
Fornaxsp.02 1 SLaorbolth&riBausrclkahwarredntc,ei1988 3 2 28
Microrhagussp.01 1 NOSODENDRJDAE
Microrhagussp.02 Nosodendroninterruption
Microrhagussp.03 (Lea. 1931)? 1 18
ANOB11DAE
Microrhagussp.04 1 1
Microrhagussp.05 2 Promtssp. 1 1
Agalhasp.01 Mysticephatasp.01 9
TROGOSS1TIDAE
Agalbasp.02
Larinotusumbilicatus
Galhodemamannerheimi LaPorle, CarterA /cck. 1937) 2
1835 3 I
Dromaeoloidessp.01 1 NCeLaEspRiJsDsAp.E 1 1
Euryptychussp.01 3 OmmadiusvorkensisKuwano 3
RDEuhrraoygmpoatmeyiocclhruuussssspps..p.0211 1 11 MIOsmEomcLlaYedrRiusuIsgDeAsrpsE.tm0e3ieriKolibac, 1998 11
Eucnemidaegen.nov.sp. 1 1 CarphurusarmipennisFairmahe, 1879 1
Hemiopsidasp. 1 1 SPHINDIDAE
THROSCIDAE
Aspidiphorussp. 1 10 4 82
Throscidaesp. 1 I NITIDULIDAE
Potergussp. 1 3 BrachypepluscaudalisMurray 14 1 1
Aulonothroscussp.01 3 MONOTOMIDAE
ELATERIDAE
MimemodeslaticepsMacleay 1 3
Elateridaesp.03 17 2 3 Mimemodessp.01 1
Agrypnussp.01 10 3 5 ShogunalermitiformisFairniaire 7 7 11
Anilicus'sp.nov.' 2 SILVAN1DAE
Megapenthessp.01 1 3 Psammoectts'ANICsp.01' 3 1 1
Megapenthessp.02 4 2 Monamts'ANICsp.01' 1 1
1
158 MEMOIRS OF THE QUEENSLAND MUSEUM
Species GFIT LE TW Species GFIT LE TW
LAEMOPHLOEIDAE CORYLOPHIDAE
Laemophloeidaesp.03 1 Holopsissp.02 15
Laemophloeidaesp.04 1 Holopsissp.03 3 1 2
Laemophloeidaesp.05 4 Parmulussp. 1 98 21 45
Microlaemusbrightensis(Blackburn) 3 Parmulussp.02 1 1
LATRIDHDAE
Laemophloeussp. 1 3 2
Bicavacastanea(Broun) 2
Mariolaemussp.01? 1 1
Rhabdophloeusconterminus(Olliff) 1 Bicavasp. 1 ') 21
Bicavasp.02 5 39
Xylolestesovajis(Grouvelle)? 1 1
PROPALTICIDAE Aridiussp. 1 3
C1IDAE
Propalticussimplex
Crowson&SenGupta, 1969 3 Octotemnussp.01? 1
PHALACRIDAE Octotemnussp.02 1
Phalacridaesp.01 5 3 Cissp.01 14 i: 123
CRYPTOPHAGIDAE
Cissp.02 4 6
MicroalomariahintortiLeschen, 1996 2 2 1 Cissp.03 5 4 20
EROTYLIDAE CUsp.04 2
Microstermtssp.01 1 Cissp.05 2
Episcaphulasp. 1 1 Cissp.06 1
BIPHYLLIDAE
Cissp.07 1 1
Biphvlhtsobscuronotatus(Lea, 1922) 11 2 23 Cissp.09 1
BiphyllusornatelhtsBlackburn 2 Cissp. 1 2
BOTHRIDER1DAE
Cis'sp.886' 1 1 2
Teredolaemussp.02 1 1 Eiixestocissp. 1 125
CERYLONIDAE
Neoennearthronsp. 1 2 2
AustraliorylonneboissiSlipinski, 1988 42 1 34 Orthocissp.01 3
AustraliorylonsetosusSlipinski, 1988 8 8 Orthocissp.02 4
Caufomusmirabilis(Oke, 1932) 3 5 MELANDRYIDAE
CerylonopsisdoyeniSlipinski, 1988 21 Orchesiasp. 1 1
LapelhusastrolabciHeinze. 1944 3 2 6 MORDELLIDAE
PSlhiipliontskhie,rm1u9s88microsetosus 41 4 31 Mordellidaesp.01 4 6
EuxestusmatthewsiSlipinski. 19S8 15 3 27 Mordellidaesp.02 1
DISCOLOMATIDAE Mordellidaesp.03 (1 1
Mordellidaesp.04 2
Aphanocephalussp.01 2 25 44
Anhanocephalusporopterus Mordellidaesp.07 1
Lea, 19227 1 1 Mordellidaesp. 1 1
ENDOMYCH1DAE
Mordellidaesp. 12 1
Endomychidaesp. 1 1 2 MordellistenacoelioxysLea? 9 1 11
l-.iidomychidacsp.1)3 57 Plesitomoxia'ANICsp.03' 1
Endomychidaesp.04 1 1 ZOPHERIDAE
Endomychidaesp.05 1 1 AblabusqueenslandicusSlipinski 1 2 1
Endomychidaesp.06 1 Anlilissussp.01 » 1
Erotendomychusn.sp.01 1 ColobiconesalfaSlipinski, 1999 2 1 1
IdiophyesbrevisBlackburn, 1895? 3 ColobiconesaustralisSlipinski,1999 4 T
StenatarsuspisoniaeLea 4 3 6 ColobiconesoculatitsSlipinski, 1999 5 19
COCC1NELLIDAI ColobiconespapuanusSlipinski? 1
Coccinellidaesp.01 1 1 PLsaewurdeenncdee,st1e9s80australis 2 6 1
CCoocccciinneelllliiddaaeesspp..0032 11 STleinptianbslkiabu&sLfaulwvrtiesnce, 1997 2
Sticholotidinaesp.01 1 3 3 S(yCanrctheirta&?Zfeasccki,at1a937) 1
Telsimiasp.01 1 1 Pycnomems'n.sp."01 3 27