All

What are you looking for?

All
Projects
Results
Organizations

Quick search

  • Projects supported by TA ČR
  • Excellent projects
  • Projects with the highest public support
  • Current projects

Smart search

  • That is how I find a specific +word
  • That is how I leave the -word out of the results
  • “That is how I can find the whole phrase”

Insects moving through forest-crop edges: a comparison among sampling methods

The result's identifiers

  • Result code in IS VaVaI

    <a href="https://www.isvavai.cz/riv?ss=detail&h=RIV%2F60460709%3A41330%2F20%3AN0000137" target="_blank" >RIV/60460709:41330/20:N0000137 - isvavai.cz</a>

  • Alternative codes found

    RIV/60460709:41330/19:81515

  • Result on the web

    <a href="https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10841-019-00201-6" target="_blank" >https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10841-019-00201-6</a>

  • DOI - Digital Object Identifier

    <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10841-019-00201-6" target="_blank" >10.1007/s10841-019-00201-6</a>

Alternative languages

  • Result language

    angličtina

  • Original language name

    Insects moving through forest-crop edges: a comparison among sampling methods

  • Original language description

    Edges between natural and cultivated habitats have become dominant elements of all terrestrial ecosystems. Interchanges of several groups of organisms, such as insects, occur through these edges, potentially affecting ecosystem functioning and conservation of species and communities of neighboring habitats. Different trap types are used for collecting moving insects, although their effectiveness and complementarity for sampling in edges were not previously analyzed. Here, we evaluated the assemblages collected with three commonly used trap types (flight interception-FITs, yellow pan, and pitfall traps) at the boundaries between soybean fields and native forests in Central Argentina. We compared trap types from a taxonomic and functional perspective and determined their complementarity (how different assemblages were). In total, 66,949 arthropods from 1007 species were collected. Yellow pan traps collected more species and individuals, followed by FITs and pitfall traps. Pan traps and FITs showed low complementarity, whereas both types of traps were complementary to assemblages from pitfall traps. Yellow pan traps were also linked to higher species richness of most functional groups, whereas abundances and functional composition showed different patterns. Pan traps were linked to herbivores and natural enemies, and FITs with detritivores and, to a lesser extent, pollinators. These results suggest that the combination of pitfall traps with a trap for flying insects could provide a better representation of insect communities moving through edges. The choice between pan and FITs will be related to the main groups of interest, the costs and simplicity of use, and the relevance of quantifying directional movement.

  • Czech name

  • Czech description

Classification

  • Type

    J<sub>imp</sub> - Article in a specialist periodical, which is included in the Web of Science database

  • CEP classification

  • OECD FORD branch

    10619 - Biodiversity conservation

Result continuities

  • Project

  • Continuities

    S - Specificky vyzkum na vysokych skolach

Others

  • Publication year

    2020

  • Confidentiality

    S - Úplné a pravdivé údaje o projektu nepodléhají ochraně podle zvláštních právních předpisů

Data specific for result type

  • Name of the periodical

    JOURNAL OF INSECT CONSERVATION

  • ISSN

    1366-638X

  • e-ISSN

    1572-9753

  • Volume of the periodical

    24

  • Issue of the periodical within the volume

    2

  • Country of publishing house

    NL - THE KINGDOM OF THE NETHERLANDS

  • Number of pages

    10

  • Pages from-to

    249-258

  • UT code for WoS article

    000500542000001

  • EID of the result in the Scopus database

    2-s2.0-85075943146