4.7 Article

Effects of insecticide exposure on movement and population size estimates of predatory ground beetles (Coleoptera : Carabidae)

期刊

PEST MANAGEMENT SCIENCE
卷 64, 期 1, 页码 30-36

出版社

JOHN WILEY & SONS LTD
DOI: 10.1002/ps.1460

关键词

sublethal; activity-density; pitfall traps; pyrethroids; EthoVision; hormesis

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BACKGROUND: Estimates of arthropod population size may paradoxically increase following insecticide applications. Research with ground beetles (Coleoptera: Carabidae) suggests that such unusual results reflect increased arthropod movement and capture in traps rather than real changes in population size. However, it is unclear whether direct (hyperactivity) or indirect (prey-mediated) mechanisms produce increased movement. RESULTS: Video tracking of Scarites quadyiceps Chaudior indicated that brief exposure to lambda-cyhalothrin or tefluthrin increased total distance moved, maximum velocity and percentage of time moving. Repeated measurements on individual beetles indicated that movement decreased 240 min after initial lambda-cyhalothrin exposure, but increased again following a second exposure, suggesting hyperactivity could lead to increased trap captures in the field. Two field experiments in which ground beetles were collected after lambda-cyhalothrin or permethrin application attempted to detect increases in population size estimates as a result of hyperactivity. Field trials used mark-release-recapture methods in small plots and natural carabid populations in larger plots, but found no significant short-term (<6 day) increases in beetle trap captures. CONCLUSION: The disagreement between laboratory and field results suggests mechanisms other than hyperactivity may better explain unusual changes in population size estimates. When traps are used as a primary sampling tool, unexpected population-level effects should be interpreted carefully or with additional data less influenced by arthropod activity. Published in 2007 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据