Hostname: page-component-5c6d5d7d68-sv6ng Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-08-09T22:08:13.254Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

SAMPLING METHODS FOR ARTHROPOD COLONIZATION STUDIES IN SOYBEAN1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 May 2012

Mark A. Mayse
Affiliation:
Department of Entomology, University of Illinois, Illinois Agricultural Experiment Station and Illinois Natural History Survey, Urbana 61801
Peter W. Price
Affiliation:
Department of Entomology, University of Illinois, Illinois Agricultural Experiment Station and Illinois Natural History Survey, Urbana 61801
Marcos Kogan
Affiliation:
Department of Entomology, University of Illinois, Illinois Agricultural Experiment Station and Illinois Natural History Survey, Urbana 61801

Abstract

Direct observation (DO) of arthropods on soybean plants was compared with another absolute method, clam trap (CT), and with sweepnet (SW) sampling during a season-long investigation of the colonization by arthropods of two east central Illinois soybean fields. In terms of number of species detected, DO vs. CT showed good agreement between the two fields, while DO vs. SW showed poor between-field agreement. Proportion of similarity (PS) and quotient of similarity (QS) values were higher in a DO-CT comparison than in a DO-SW comparison. Performance similar to that of the other absolute method, consistency of results, ability to use the method throughout the entire season, relatively high numbers of species and individuals detected per unit area sampled, relatively short time required to sample a site, and the capability of yielding a precise record of important interactions among soybean arthropods indicate that direct observation is an effective method for sampling the arthropod community on a row crop such as soybean.

Type
Articles
Copyright
Copyright © Entomological Society of Canada 1978

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Balduf, W. V. 1923. The insects of the soybean in Ohio. Bull. Ohio agric. Exp. Stn 366, pp. 148181.Google Scholar
Blickenstaff, C. C. and Huggans, J. L.. 1962. Soybean insects and related arthropods in Missouri. Res. Bull. Missouri agric. Exp. Stn 803. 51 pp.Google Scholar
Deitz, L. L., VanDuyn, J. W., Bradley, J. R. Jr., Rabb, R. L., Brooks, W. M., and Stinner, R. E.. 1976. A guide to the identification and biology of soybean arthropods in North Carolina. Tech. Bull. N.C. agric. Exp. Stn 238. 264 pp.Google Scholar
DeLong, D. M. 1932. Some problems encountered in the estimation of insect populations by the sweeping method. Ann. ent. Soc. Am. 25: 1317.Google Scholar
Dempster, J. P. 1961. A sampler for estimating populations of insects upon vegetation. J. Anim. Ecol. 30: 425427.Google Scholar
Dumas, B. A., Boyer, W. P., and Whitcomb, W. H.. 1964. The effect of various factors on surveys of predaceous insects in soybeans. J. Kans. ent. Soc. 37: 192201.Google Scholar
Hillhouse, T. L. and Pitre, H. N.. 1974. Comparison of sampling techniques to obtain measurements of insect populations on soybeans. J. econ. Ent. 67: 411414.Google Scholar
Kogan, M., Ruesink, W. G., and McDowell, K.. 1974. Spatial and temporal distribution patterns of the bean leaf beetle, Cerotoma trifurcata (Forster), on soybeans in Illinois. Environ. Ent. 3: 607617.Google Scholar
Kretzschmar, G. P. 1948. Soybean insects in Minnesota with special reference to sampling techniques. J. econ. Ent. 41: 586591.Google Scholar
Leigh, T. F., Gonzalez, D., and van den Bosch, R.. 1970. A sampling device for estimating absolute insect populations on cotton. J. econ. Ent. 63: 17041706.Google Scholar
Lincoln, C. 1955. Survey methods. Predators on cotton. Coop. Econ. Insect Rep. (Plant Pest Control Br., ARS–USDA) 5, pp. 10771078.Google Scholar
Marston, N. L., Morgan, C. E., Thomas, G. D., and Ignoffo, C. M.. 1976. Evaluation of four techniques for sampling soybean insects. J. Kans. ent. Soc. 49: 389400.Google Scholar
Mayse, M. A. and Price, P. W.. 1977. Seasonal development of soybean arthropod communities in east central Illinois. Agro-Ecosystems (in press.)Google Scholar
Myers, C. V. 1940. Insects inhabiting soybean fields. M.S. Thesis, Univ. of Illinois, Urbana. 69 pp.Google Scholar
Pedigo, L. P., Lentz, G. L., Stone, J. D., and Cox, D. F.. 1972. Green cloverworm populations in Iowa soybean with special reference to sampling procedure. J. econ. Ent. 65: 414421.Google Scholar
Pieters, E. P. and Sterling, W. L.. 1973. Sampling techniques for cotton anthropods in Texas. Rep. Texas Agric. Exp. Stn MP-1120. 8 pp.Google Scholar
Price, P. W. 1976. Colonization of crops by arthropods: non-equilibrium communities in soybean fields. Environ. Ent. 5: 605611.Google Scholar
Ruesink, W. G. and Haynes, D. L.. 1973. Sweepnet sampling for the cereal leaf beetle, Oulema melanopus. Environ. Ent. 2: 161172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ruesink, W. G. and Kogan, M.. 1976. The quantitative basis of pest management: sampling and measuring, pp. 309351. In Metcalf, R. L. and Luckmann, W. H. (Eds.), Introduction to insect pest management. Wiley, New York.Google Scholar
Shepard, M., Carner, G. R., and Turnipseed, S. G.. 1974. A comparison of three sampling methods for arthropods in soybeans. Environ. Ent. 3: 227232.Google Scholar
*Sorensen, T. 1948. A method of establishing groups of equal amplitude in plant sociology based on similarity of species content and its application to analyses of the vegetation of Danish commons. Biol. Skr. (K. danske vidensk. Selsk. (N.S.)) 5: 134.Google Scholar
Southwood, T. R. E. 1966. Ecological methods. Methuen, London. 391 pp.Google Scholar
Strickland, A. H. 1961. Sampling crop pests and their hosts. A. Rev. Ent. 6: 201220.Google Scholar
Tugwell, N. P., Rouse, E. P., and Thompson, R. G.. 1973. Insects in soybeans and a weed host (Desmodium sp.). Rep. Ark. agric. Exp. Stn 214. 18 pp.Google Scholar
Turnipseed, S. G. 1974. Sampling soybean insects by various D-vac, sweep, and ground cloth methods. Fla Ent. 57: 217223.Google Scholar