Attaching lures to multiple-funnel traps targeting saproxylic beetles (Coleoptera) in pine stands: inside or outside funnels?

We conducted two field trapping experiments with multiple-funnel traps in 2008 and one experiment in 2010 to determine the effects of lure placement (inside or outside funnels) on catches of saproxylic species of beetles (Coleoptera). The experiments were conducted in southern pine (Pinus spp.) stands in central Georgia using combinations of ethanol, alpha-pinene, ipsenol, and ipsdienol lures. We report on a modification to the multiple-funnel trap that allows placement of large lures inside the confines of the funnels with minimal blockage. In general, catches of five species of common longhorn beetles (Cerambycidae), two species of regeneration weevils (Curculionidae), four species of bark beetles (Curculionidae: Scolytinae), and seven species of beetle predators and ectoparasites (Cleridae, Histeridae, Tenebrionidae, Trogossitidae, and Zopheridae) were higher in funnel traps with lures attached inside the funnels than in those with lures attached outside of the funnels. Catches of the remaining species were unaffected by lure placement. In no instance were catches of any species lower in funnel traps with lures attached inside the funnels than in those with lures attached outside of the funnels. For most species, catches in modified funnel traps with ethanol, alpha-pinene, ipsenol, and ipsdienol lures attached inside funnels were comparable with those in cross-vane panel traps.

Bark beetle pheromones and pine volatiles: attractant kairomone lure blend for longhorn beetles (Cerambycidae) in pine stands of the southeastern United States.

In 2006, we examined the flight responses of 43 species of longhorn beetles (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae) to multiple-funnel traps baited with binary lure blends of (1) ipsenol + ipsdienol, (2) ethanol + alpha-pinene, and a quaternary lure blend of (3) ipsenol + ipsdienol + ethanol + alpha-pinene in the southeastern United States. In addition, we monitored responses of Buprestidae, Elateridae, and Curculionidae commonly associated with pine longhorn beetles. Field trials were conducted in mature pine (Pinus pp.) stands in Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, and Virginia. The following species preferred traps baited with the quaternary blend over those baited with ethanol + alpha-pinene: Acanthocinus nodosus (F.), Acanthocinus obsoletus (Olivier), Astylopsis arcuata (LeConte), Astylopsis sexguttata (Say), Monochamus scutellatus (Say), Monochamus titillator (F.) complex, Rhagium inquisitor (L.) (Cerambycidae), Buprestis consularis Gory, Buprestis lineata F. (Buprestidae), Ips avulsus (Eichhoff), Ips calligraphus (Germar), Ips grandicollis (Eichhoff), Orthotomicus caelatus (Eichhoff), and Gnathotrichus materiarus (Fitch) (Curculionidae). The addition ofipsenol and ipsdienol had no effect on catches of 17 other species of bark and wood boring beetles in traps baited with ethanol and a-pinene. Ethanol + alpha-pinene interrupted the attraction of Ips avulsus, I. grandicollis, and Pityophthorus Eichhoff spp. (but not I. calligraphus) (Curculionidae) to traps baited with ipsenol + ipsdienol. Our results support the use of traps baited with a quaternary blend of ipsenol + ipsdienol + ethanol + alpha-pinene for common saproxylic beetles in pine forests of the southeastern United States.

Comparison of arboreal beetle catches in wet and dry collection cups with Lindgren multiple funnel traps.

We compared the effectiveness of a dry collection cup (with an insecticide killing strip) to a wet collection cup (containing antifreeze) for use with Lindgren multiple-funnel traps in catching several common species of bark and wood-boring beetles, and their associates in southern pine forests. All traps were baited with either the binary combination of ethanol and (-)-alpha-pinene or the quaternary combination of (+/-)-ipsenol, (+/-)-ipsdienol, ethanol, and (-)-alpha-pinene. We found that cup treatment had little, if any, effect on catches of Ips avulsus (Eichhoff) and I. grandicollis (Eichhoff) (Coleoptera: Scolytidae), Alaus myops (F.) (Elateridae), Chalcophora Solier species (Buprestidae), Temnochila virescens (F.) (Trogositidae), and Lasconotus Erichson species (Colydiidae). In contrast, catches of the following species were significantly less (by 40-97%) in traps with dry cups than in traps with wet cups: Hylobius pales Herbst and Pachylobius picivorus LeConte (Curculionidae); Buprestis lineata F. (Buprestidae); Acanthocinus obsoletus (Olivier), Arhopalus rusticus nubilus (LeConte), Monochamus titillator (F.) and Xylotrechus sagittatus sagittatus (Cerambycidae); Hylastes porculus Erichson and Xyleborinus saxeseni (Ratzeburg) (Scolytidae); and Thanasimus dubius (F.) (Cleridae). The same was true in at least one experiment for the following species: Dendroctonus terebrans (Olivier), Hylastes salebrosus Eichhoff, Hylastes tenuis Eichhoff, and Xylosandrus crassiusculus (Motschulsky) (Scolytidae). We conclude that cup treatment can have a significant impact on catches of some arboreal beetles in baited multiple-funnel traps. Anyone using multiple-funnel traps to capture arboreal beetles should evaluate the potential impacts arising from their choice of collection cup treatment to their trapping objectives and expectations. The issue of cup treatment may be particular important at low population levels when maximum trap efficiency is required such as in the detection of exotic insects at ports-of-entry and within quarantine and containment zones.