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.
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 language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 470-474 |
| Number of pages | 5 |
| Journal | Insect Conservation and Diversity |
| Volume | 9 |
| Issue number | 5 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published - 1 Sept 2016 |
| Externally published | Yes |
Keywords
- Blo-Vac
- D-vac
- G-vac
- Vortis ™
- grassland insects
- vacuum sample