Suction samplers for grassland invertebrates: comparison of numbers caught using Vortis ™ and G-vac devices

Eman Zentane, Henry Quenu, Robert I. Graham, Andrew Cherrill

Research output: Contribution to journalJournal Article

3 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

1. The efficiency of Vortis™ and a modified garden leaf-blower/vacuum ‘G-vac’ sampler were compared by sampling invertebrates using standardised sample areas and suction times at three grassland sites. The G-vac caught more individuals of Araneae, Auchenorrhyncha, Thysanoptera and Hymenoptera than the Vortis. Numbers of Diptera did not differ between devices, but the Vortis™ captured greater numbers of Coleoptera.
2. Estimated air velocity within the collecting nozzle was greater for the G-vac and its mode of application resulted in greater disturbance of the grass sward than with the Vortis™. These differences may have contributed to the larger captures of certain taxa by the G-vac.
3. It is concluded that G-vacs can be applied with confidence as a credible alternative to the bespoke Vortis™, and particularly for taxa which are most frequently sampled using suction samplers.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)470-474
Number of pages5
JournalInsect Conservation and Diversity
Volume9
Issue number5
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 1 Sep 2016
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

samplers
suction
sampler
invertebrate
grasslands
grassland
invertebrates
blowers
Auchenorrhyncha
sward
nozzles
Thysanoptera
gardens
garden
Araneae
Hymenoptera
grass
Coleoptera
disturbance
sampling

Keywords

  • Blo-Vac
  • D-vac
  • G-vac
  • Vortis ™
  • grassland insects
  • vacuum sample

Cite this

@article{f1afb4b75b574c488a7d61b39244238d,
title = "Suction samplers for grassland invertebrates: comparison of numbers caught using Vortis ™ and G-vac devices",
abstract = "1. The efficiency of Vortis™ and a modified garden leaf-blower/vacuum ‘G-vac’ sampler were compared by sampling invertebrates using standardised sample areas and suction times at three grassland sites. The G-vac caught more individuals of Araneae, Auchenorrhyncha, Thysanoptera and Hymenoptera than the Vortis. Numbers of Diptera did not differ between devices, but the Vortis™ captured greater numbers of Coleoptera. 2. Estimated air velocity within the collecting nozzle was greater for the G-vac and its mode of application resulted in greater disturbance of the grass sward than with the Vortis™. These differences may have contributed to the larger captures of certain taxa by the G-vac. 3. It is concluded that G-vacs can be applied with confidence as a credible alternative to the bespoke Vortis™, and particularly for taxa which are most frequently sampled using suction samplers.",
keywords = "Blo-Vac, D-vac, G-vac, Vortis ™, grassland insects, vacuum sample",
author = "Eman Zentane and Henry Quenu and Graham, {Robert I.} and Andrew Cherrill",
year = "2016",
month = "9",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1111/icad.12185",
language = "English",
volume = "9",
pages = "470--474",
journal = "Insect Conservation and Diversity",
issn = "1752-458X",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",
number = "5",

}

Suction samplers for grassland invertebrates: comparison of numbers caught using Vortis ™ and G-vac devices. / Zentane, Eman; Quenu, Henry; Graham, Robert I.; Cherrill, Andrew.

In: Insect Conservation and Diversity, Vol. 9, No. 5, 01.09.2016, p. 470-474.

Research output: Contribution to journalJournal Article

TY - JOUR

T1 - Suction samplers for grassland invertebrates: comparison of numbers caught using Vortis ™ and G-vac devices

AU - Zentane, Eman

AU - Quenu, Henry

AU - Graham, Robert I.

AU - Cherrill, Andrew

PY - 2016/9/1

Y1 - 2016/9/1

N2 - 1. The efficiency of Vortis™ and a modified garden leaf-blower/vacuum ‘G-vac’ sampler were compared by sampling invertebrates using standardised sample areas and suction times at three grassland sites. The G-vac caught more individuals of Araneae, Auchenorrhyncha, Thysanoptera and Hymenoptera than the Vortis. Numbers of Diptera did not differ between devices, but the Vortis™ captured greater numbers of Coleoptera. 2. Estimated air velocity within the collecting nozzle was greater for the G-vac and its mode of application resulted in greater disturbance of the grass sward than with the Vortis™. These differences may have contributed to the larger captures of certain taxa by the G-vac. 3. It is concluded that G-vacs can be applied with confidence as a credible alternative to the bespoke Vortis™, and particularly for taxa which are most frequently sampled using suction samplers.

AB - 1. The efficiency of Vortis™ and a modified garden leaf-blower/vacuum ‘G-vac’ sampler were compared by sampling invertebrates using standardised sample areas and suction times at three grassland sites. The G-vac caught more individuals of Araneae, Auchenorrhyncha, Thysanoptera and Hymenoptera than the Vortis. Numbers of Diptera did not differ between devices, but the Vortis™ captured greater numbers of Coleoptera. 2. Estimated air velocity within the collecting nozzle was greater for the G-vac and its mode of application resulted in greater disturbance of the grass sward than with the Vortis™. These differences may have contributed to the larger captures of certain taxa by the G-vac. 3. It is concluded that G-vacs can be applied with confidence as a credible alternative to the bespoke Vortis™, and particularly for taxa which are most frequently sampled using suction samplers.

KW - Blo-Vac

KW - D-vac

KW - G-vac

KW - Vortis ™

KW - grassland insects

KW - vacuum sample

U2 - 10.1111/icad.12185

DO - 10.1111/icad.12185

M3 - Journal Article

VL - 9

SP - 470

EP - 474

JO - Insect Conservation and Diversity

JF - Insect Conservation and Diversity

SN - 1752-458X

IS - 5

ER -