Moth Species Caught by Ultraviolet and Visible Light Sources in Connection with Their Wingspan

Abstract

For a long time, researchers have compared light traps operating with different light sources. According to the results, ultraviolet lights often performed better than visible light sources. In the present study, we examine the wingspan of macrolepidoptera species in relation to the catch result of visible (visible) and BL traps in choice and no-choice situations using data from the Hungarian light-trap network. We used the catch data of 19 light-trap stations from 1962 to 1963. Up to 18 stations belonged to the national network and the last one was in Nagytétény. We processed data of 381 species of the 18 light-traps data of the national network and data of 222 species from the light traps of Nagytétény. The data of the wingspan of the different macrolepidoptera species we collected from the websites of UKmoths (http://ukmoths.org.uk/index.php), and Guide to the Butterflies and Moths of Hungary (macrolepidoptera) (http://www.macrolepidoptera.hu). We summarised for each light-trap station and each trap type the number of the macrolepidopteran species and individuals caught from different generations. Then, using the Mann–Whitney test, we checked for species the number of individuals captured by visible and BL traps, and the difference of the level of significance. We summarised the wingspan data of all the 381 species, the more efficient light source for each species in a no-choice situation at multiple sites and for the single site of Nagytétény the more efficient light source for species detected there. The BL trap seems most efficient for operation for plant protecting purposes, despite the fact that their use is far more problematic. Insect species are not only endangered by light trapping but also by the light pollution of urban areas. Our results confirm that the different light sources should incur mortality on different species to differing levels. Such differential mortality from artificial light sources could disturb the balance of life in biological communities.

1. Introduction

For a long time, researchers worldwide have compared light traps operating with different light sources. The results have been diverse although ultraviolet lights often performed better than white light sources. Catching results seem to vary with taxa and with the size of insects; so, it is not easy to assert that one type of light source is best for all occasions. Knowledge of the responses of various insect taxa to artificial light not only has implications for trapping techniques in entomology but also for assessing the impact of artificial light pollution on biological ecosystems.

Researchers have also examined the spectral sensitivity of the insect’s eye. Electroretinogram measurements are used to determine the spectral sensitivity of the insect eye. In international literature, several studies are devoted to the results of laboratory measurements carried out on various species. No reports of such experiments are known in Hungary, and data on the most important Hungarian pestilent species are also missing from the international literature on the subject.

Few researchers have examined the relationship of the body or eye size with the selection of light sources.

Different light sources are used in the various types of light traps. The light source determines the running temperature, the colour temperature, and the spectral distribution of the light energy that it emits. Some sources such as black light (BL) emit mainly in the ultraviolet wavelength range (320–400 nm), some such as normal or white light (V) emit in the visible range (400–700 nm), and some such as mercury vapour (Hg) emit across ultraviolet and visible wavelengths (200–600 nm). Some sources emit or are filtered to a narrow range of wavelengths such as particular colours visible to the human eye.

Mikkola [1] established that moths and butterflies (Lepidoptera) and caddis fly species (Trichoptera) have an eye sensitivity that remains practically unchanged in the 350–600 nm spectrum. Its maximum is around 550 nm (green, same as the value of the human eye during daytime). The sensitivity is greatly reduced at about 620 nm (orange-red). McFarlane and Eaton [2] have reported that the responses of Cabbage Looper (Trichoplusia ni Hbn.) to monochromatic light stimuli have been investigated by electroretinogram (ERG) and electromyogram (EMG) techniques. The spectral sensitivity curves for male and female Cabbage Loppers show a major peak at 540–550 nm and a minor peak in the ultraviolet range at 360 nm. Agee [3] showed by electroretinogram tests that the sensitivity of eyes of the Bollworm Moth (Heliothis zea Boddie) and Tobacco Bollworm (Heliothis virescens F.) to 365 nm and 480–575 nm wavelengths light is the highest.

Pappas and Eaton [4] found that the ocelli of the Tobacco Hornworm (Manduca sexta L.) are more sensitive to 520 nm light than to 360 nm light stimuli. Similar results are reported by Eguchi et al. [5] about the Sphingid moths. These moths possess the highest peak sensitivity at 540 nm.

Gui et al. [6] reported that the colours on which comparable data are available to arrange themselves in order of least to most attractiveness to insects as red, yellow, white, and blue. From tests of Taylor and Deay [7], it appears that the maximum attractiveness for the European Corn Borer (Ostrinia nubilalis Hbn.) is in the near-ultraviolet region between 320 and 380 nm.

Many researchers found that ultraviolet or black light was most effective in catching insects but for some taxa, a combination of ultraviolet and visible light was more effective while a few taxa were best trapped by using visible light alone.

In a comparative experiment, Frost [8] found that black light attracted almost all taxa of insects more than white light. The exceptions were the Miridae and Chrysopidae, which preferred white light. Belton and Kempster [9] (1963) caught more Noctuidae and Geometridae with a BL fluorescent tube than with the normal or cold white light (N). Sifter [10] examined the swarming of the Chestnut Weevil (Curculio elephas Gyllenhal, Coleoptera: Curculionidae) by using visible and BL light traps. The body length of this beetle is only 6–9 mm. The normal light trap did not catch a single specimen but the BL one was suitable for investigation of swarming. According to Bürgés et al. [11], those families (Geometridae, Sphingidae, Notodontidae, Arctiidae, and Noctuidae) that are rich in species fly to both normal and BL light traps, but the BL traps catch significantly more species and more specimens of many species [12] studied the efficiency of catching useful or beneficial insects by using different light sources. The Coccinellidae (Coleoptera) species preferred BL, the Ophion sp. (Hymenoptera: Ichneumonidae) preferred blue BL while Chrysopa spp. (Neuroptera: Chrysopidae) was trapped equally well with white and BL light, while every source of light had the same impact on some broad damsel bugs (Hemiptera: Nabidae) and the lacewings, Hemerobius spp. (Neuroptera: Hemerobiidae). Comparative studies [13] found each of several Microlepidoptera species was more effectively collected in BL traps than normal ones. In our earlier study [14], we compared in two light-trap stations, the composition of species of five macrolepidopteran families from the material of normal and BL light traps by applying the Sorensen index. The results are the follows: Geometridae: 0.607 and 0.518; Sphingidae: 0.750 and 0.500; Notodontidae: 0.444 and 0.429; Arctiidae: 0.714 and 0.609; Noctuidae: 0.608 and 0.527.

Some authors found ultraviolet light more effective than particular wavelengths of visible light in trapping insects. In the test of Day and Reid [15], the 15 W fluorescent BL lamps were more efficient for capturing Conoderus falli Lane (Coleoptera: Elateridae) than similar yellow sources. Teel et al. [16] perceived the maximum sensitivity of the eye of Hickory Shuckworm (Laspeyresia caryana Fitch.) at 365 nm and 515 nm. At these two values, six times as many individuals responded to the near-ultraviolet light than to the green light. Skuhravý et al. [17] found a BL trap much more effective than either yellow, green, or red light in collecting the Saddle Gall Midge (Haplodiplosis marginata von Roser) (Diptera: Cecidomydae).

Some authors found a combination of ultraviolet and visible wavelengths to be most effective. Cleve [18] found an ultraviolet fluorescent lamp (BL) that was very attractive to insects if it illuminated a white sheet. Similarly, Belton and Kempster [19] verified the results of their laboratory measurements of eye sensitivity by the test of light-trap collecting. They caught the highest number of insects with lamps emitting both BL and visible light. The catch dwindled when they used BL alone while visible light alone produced an even poorer result. A striking contradiction was found, however, for the six most important insect groups (Coleoptera, Trichoptera, Lepidoptera, Brachycera, and Nematocera Ichneumonoidea) in terms of sensitivity and attractive lighting effect. These insects’ eyes were more sensitive to the yellow light but the attractive effect was the opposite.

Some authors found visible light to be more effective than ultraviolet light in trapping certain insects. Jászainé [20] analysed the catching results of Common Meadow Bug (Exolygus pratensis Wagner) (Heteroptera: Miridae) in normal (V) and ultraviolet light traps (BL) to find the former caught more individuals. Other taxa showing a greater attraction to regular light include some fruit flies [21] virus vector cicadae (Laodelphax striatella (Fallén) and Javesella pellucida (Fabr., Homoptera, Areopidae) [22] European Grapevine Moth (Lobesia botrana Den. et Schiff.) and Vine Moth (Eupoecilia ambiguella Hbn. [23].

Some authors included light sources, such as mercury and sodium in their experiments. For [24] the standard light trap caught only a few specimens of the Eurasian Hemp Moths (Grapholita delineana Walker) while a HgLS light source caught many of these moths. The wingspan of the Eurasian Hemp Moths is 10–14 mm.

Blomberg et al. [25] compared two types of light trap catch results. One of them was the so-called blended light trap containing a 160 W Tungsram mercury fluorescent lamp emitting ultraviolet and visible light. The BL was provided with a 125 W Philips HPW lamp. The mercury fluorescent lamp caught twice as many moths of the macrolepidoptera (families Geometridae and Noctuidae), and the microlepidopteran species as the BL trap.

According to Gál et al. and Bürgés [26, 27, 28] for light trapping of Chestnut Weevil (Curculio elephas Gyllenhal) and Acorn Moth (Cydia splendana Hbn.) the most effective light source is the mercury vapour lamp (HgW). Traps with visible or BL lamps achieved comparable catches to each other but less than the mercury source, which produces both ultraviolet and visible light.

Extremely valuable conclusions follow from a series of experiments by Járfás et al., Járfás and Tóth [29, 30] in which catch results yielded by 125 W (HgVE 27) ultraviolet, 125 W (HgLSE27) mercury vapour, 100 W (OHP 220–230 VAO) krypton, 100 W (F₃) 50 cm neon, 250 W (E 279043 IMP) infraruby, and 50 cm germicidal lamps were compared. Silver Y moths (Autographa gamma L.), Pine Chafers (Polyphylla fullo L.), Vine Chafers (Anomala vitis Fabr.), and Scarab Beetles (Anoxia orientalis Kryniczky) flew to the mercury vapour lamps in the highest numbers, while infraruby light proved to be practically unsuitable for trapping. Járfás published further results of his experiments on different moth species. Most suitable for catching was the mercury lamp (HgW) ahead of BL which was better than visible or visible light for the Silver Y (A. gamma L.) [29], the Codling Moth (Cydia pomonella L.) [31], the Pea Podborer (Etiella zinckenella Tr.) [32] and the Beet Webworm (Loxostege sticticalis L.) [33]. Also, Járfás [34] reported that the Apple Peel Tortrix (Adoxophyes reticulana Hbn.), the Pear Moth (Laspeyresia pyrivora Pan.), and the Plum Fruit Moth (Grapholita funebrana Tr.) can be best caught with the mercury vapour lamp (HgW) but for the Strawberry Tortricid (Pandemis dumetana Tr.) and the Dark Fruit-tree Tortrix (Pandemis heparana Den. et Schiff.) the visible light bulb was most effective. Similarly, the European Corn Borer (O. nubilalis Hbn.) was collected in the HgW traps more successfully than in the visible and the BL traps [35].

Wallner et al. [36] carried out experiments with three lymantriid species in the Russian Far East. They caught significantly more moths of all three species using fluorescent black light than either phosphor mercury or high-pressure sodium lamps. The species were Gipsy Moth (Lymantria dispar L.), Nun Moth (Lymantria monaca L.), and the Pink Gipsy Moth (Lymantria matura Moore).

Fayle et al. [37] compared three types of Robinson light traps equipped with 125 W mercury bulb, which emits visible and ultraviolet light. One of these light sources included materials that absorb visible light; so, this lamp was an ultraviolet or BL type trap. The fewest moths were caught by the BL trap. Barghini [38] tested four light sources. Most insects were caught using the high-pressure mercury lamp (Hg). A further order was as follows—high-pressure sodium (Na) without a BL filter and the same type with BL filter.

In the last decade, most researchers found a connection between the body size of the insects, expressed as body weight, eye size or wingspan, and their light sensitivity. Taxa with larger eyes and wingspan have higher light sensitivity than those with smaller eyes. Over the last decade, published studies supported the finding that the vision of insects with greater body weight is more sensitive than the smaller species. Such a statement was published concerning desert ants (Cataglyphis) [39]; pollen foraging bees, (Apoidea) [40] the bumblebees (Bombus terrestris L.) [41, 42]; the nymphalid butterflies (Nymphalidae) [43]. Moser et al. [44] found a connection between the size of the eyes of 10 Atta species (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) and the time of nuptial flight using the digital photograph method. The diameter of compound eyes of the night flying species was significantly larger. Yack et al. [45] reported similar results in the Macrosoma eliconiaria Walker (Lepidoptera: Hedyloidea) species.

Experiments of Kino and Oshima [46] suggest that moth and butterfly emanations could cause allergy-induced bronchial asthma in certain patients. Since moths are attracted readily to artificial lights and often fly into houses, these insects are especially suspect as important factors in extrinsic asthma. Barghini and Medeiros [47] (2010) assumed that in developing countries, the growing light pollution will affect the spread of vector-borne human diseases as well.

van Langevelde et al. [48] established that artificial light with smaller wavelengths attracted more individuals and greater specific diversity of insects than light with larger wavelengths. The attraction was correlated with the body mass, wingspan, and eye size of moths. The size-dependent response to artificial light sources is likely to distort the ecosystems if it generates selective mortality.

In the above-mentioned studies, the catch coming from parallel operated regular and BL light traps offered a unique possibility to answer the following questions.

• Is there a significant difference by species and families between the catch yielded by the two types of traps?

• Which of the two light sources is more suitable for trapping what species?

• Are there any species that can only be collected by one of the two types of light sources?

• Does either of the two types indicate the presence of more species than the other?

• To what extent do the materials yielded by the two types of traps at the same observation site differ in their composition by species?

In the present study, we examined the wingspan of macrolepidopteran species in relation to the catch result of visible and BL traps in choice and no-choice situations using data from the Hungarian light-trap network.

2. Material

To compare the differences in the practical use of visible and BL light traps, from 1962, the Hungarian Plant Protection Research Institute at Keszthely experimented with the parallel operation of two light traps, one running on a visible bulb producing mainly visible light and the other outfitted with BL light-emitting mainly ultraviolet light. Also in 1962, the Plant Protection Service, in its turn, added a BL light trap in Nagytétény to the ones running on visible light, and equipped all its county plant protection stations also with BL traps in 1963. The national network of parallel operated visible and BL light traps opened up the possibility to a wide-scale examination of the results and usefulness of collecting with the two types. Most valuable information was provided by the light traps at Nagytétény where regular and BL traps were placed at a mere 10 metres distance from one another. The proximity of the two traps meant an identity of the microclimate, vegetation, and the distance from the habitats of the various species and so the insects were practically offered the choice of the two different light sources. At other sites, the visible and BL traps were separated by a distance greater than their likely radius of effect and so did not offer a choice situation to insects.

The visible and BL light traps operated in the following cities and villages:

Baj (47°38′N, 18°21′E)	Mikepércs (47°26′N, 21°37′E)
Csopak (45°58′N, 17°55′E)	Miskolc (48°51′N, 20°46′E)
Fácánkert (46°26′N, 18°44′E)	Nagytétény (47°38′N, 18°97′E)
Gyöngyös (47°46′N, 19°55′E)	Pacsa (46°43′N, 17°09′E)
Győr-Kismegyer (47°39′N, 17°39′E)	Szederkény (45°59′N, 18°27′E)
Hódmezővásárhely (46°25′N, 20°19′E)	Tanakajd (47°11′N, 16°44′E)
Kaposvár (46°22′N, 17°46′E)	Tarhos (46°48′N, 21°12′E)
Kállósemjén (47°51′N, 21°55′E)	Tass (47°12′N, 19°20′E)
Kenderes (47°13′N, 20°45′E)	Velence (47°14′N, 18°38′E)
Keszthely (46°46′N, 17°15′E)

The complete macrolepidopteran material of above-listed light traps was processed in our work. We processed data of 381 species of the 18 light-traps data of the national network and data of 222 species from the light traps of Nagytétény.

The data of the wingspan of the different Macrolepidoptera species we collected from the websites of UKmoths (http://ukmoths.org.uk/index.php), and Guide to the Butterflies and Moths of Hungary (macrolepidoptera) (http://www.macrolepidoptera.hu).

3. Methods

We summarise for each light-trap station and each trap type the number of the macrolepidopteran species and individuals caught from different generations but did not separate the individuals into generations. Then, using the Mann–Whitney test, we checked for species the number of individuals captured by visible and BL traps, and the difference of the level of significance. The theoretical bases of the test and its application were shown by Hajtman et al. [49, 50] in detail. We created a common sample in the course of the procedure, which included all of the observation sites. The element number of the sample is twice the number of observation sites (because two traps were in operation at every station), at which one of the traps revealed the presence of a species. We sum it up by segregating the numbers of individuals in the unified sample. We compared these values with the table value to determine the difference and its level of significance.

Particular attention was paid to the comparison of catches at Nagytétény in the visible and BL traps which were in close proximity, with identical micro-climate, vegetation, and habitat, so that the moths could choose between different light sources at one place.

In the taxonomic sequence, we tabulate all species for wingspan and preferred type of light trap. We separate in this table the light traps of the nationwide network (no-choice situations) from the light traps at Nagytétény (choice situation).

For graphical analysis, we arranged in ascending order, regardless of their taxonomic place, all the species collected both by the national light-trap network, as well as the Nagytétény traps according to the wingspan of insects. We calculated the percentages of species caught by BL and visible traps in relation to the sum of data of the network and also Nagytétény. We calculated the approaching functions of the curves.

The approximate curve is the so-called logistic curve:

$$y=\frac{k}{\left(1+{\mathrm{e}}^{b_0+b_{1}x}\right)}$$

where “k” is the saturation value [51]. In our case, k = 100, because the elements of samples are in percentage. So, we must not estimate the value of k from the samples. In this way, the values of b₀ and b₁ can be determined by linear regression of transformed data. The estimated values of these constants are: b₀ = 3.19, b₁ = −0.151.

The value of the correlation index can be determined from the relationship:

$$i_{\mathit{xy}}=\sqrt{1-\frac{s_r^2}{s_y^2}}$$

where $s_r^2$ is the residual variance, $s_y^2$ is the variance of the independent variable? In our case: i_xy = 0.956.

We depicted their number as the species in the function of the wingspan, that BL and the visible light traps collected it in an equal proportion. We made use of the middle values of the extreme values in all cases. We examined in Ref. to the families Sphingidae, Geometridae, Notodontidae, Erebidae, and Noctuidae whether the number of species collected effectively by the visible or BL traps differed? We also looked for species that cannot be detected in the two results (visible versus BL) in significant differences despite the number of traps being sufficient to determine significant differences.

4. Results and discussion

We summarise in Table 1 that the wingspan data of all the 378 species, the more efficient light source for each species in a no-choice situation at multiple sites and for the single site of Nagytétény the more efficient light source for species detected there.

No.	Scientific names of species	A	B	C	D
Drepanidae (Average of wingspan is 31.6 mm)
1	Watsonalla binaria Hfn.	24	10	E	—
2	Drepana falcataria L.	31	6	E	—
3	Sabra harpagula Esp.	30	5	E	—
4	Cilix glaucata Scop.	20	20	E	E
5	Asphalia ruficollis Den. et Schiff.	36	4	E	—
6	Habrosyne pyrithoides Hfn.	37	5	E	—
7	Tethea ocularis Hbn.	35	4	BL	—
8	Tethea or Den. et Schiff.	40	7	E	—
Lasiocampidae (Average of wingspan is 42.2 mm)
9	Poecilocampa populi L.	37	6	E	—
10	Trichiura crataegi L.	27	5	E	—
11	Malacosoma neustria L.	30	12	E	—
12	Lasiocampa trifolii Den. et Schiff.	47	6	E	BL
13	Odonestis pruni L.	40	17	BL	—
14	Macrothylacia rubi L.	52	11	E	—
15	Phyllodesma ilicifolia L.	35	11	BL	—
16	Gastropacha quercifolia L.	70	17	BL	E
Saturniidae (Average of wingspan is 82.5 mm
17	Saturnia pyri Den. et Schiff.	115	7	BL	—
18	Saturnia pavonia L.	50	5	BL	—
Sphingidae (Average of wingspan is 82.5 mm
19	Mimas tiliae L.	67	12	BL	BL
20	Smerinthus ocellata L.	75	21	BL	BL
21	Laothoe populi L.	77	17	BL	V
22	Marumba quercus Den. et Schif.	100	5	E	—
23	Agrius convolvuli L.	100	14	BL	—
24	Sphinx ligustri L.	105	19	BL	E
25	Sphinx pinastri L.	77	11	BL	—
26	Macroglossum stellatarum L.	45	5	E	—
27	Deilephila elpenor L.	53	14	BL	—
28	Deilephila porcellus L.	43	14	BL	BL
29	Hyles euphorbiae L.	65	21	BL	BL
Geometridae (Average of wingspan is 26.1 mm)
30	Rhodostrophia vibicaria Clerck	27	16	E	BL
31	Idaea rufaria Hbn.	13	6	E	V
32	Idaea serpentata Hfn.	22	5	E	—
33	Idaea aureolaria Den. et Schiff.	11	4	BL	—
34	Idaea muricata Hfn.	19	8	E	—
35	Idaea rusticata Den & Schiff.	20	17	E	BL
36	Idaea obsoletaria Rambur	22	4	V	—
37	Idaea fuscovenosa Goeze.	20	12	E	BL
38	Idaea humiliata Hfn.	20	12	V	V
39	Idaea politaria Hbn.	16	5	V	—
40	Idaea seriata Schrk.	20	5	E	BL
41	Idaea dimidiata Hfn.	16	17	V	V
42	Idaea nitidata H.-Sch.	20	4	E	BL
43	Idaea aversata L.	26	16	E	BL
44	Idaea degeneraria Hbn.	28	7	E	BL
45	Idaea straminata Brkh.	30	10	E	BL
46	Scopula immorata L.	23	17	E	BL
47	Scopula nigropunctata Hfn.	31	4	E	—
48	Scopula virgulata Den. et Schiff.	20	20	V	E
49	Scopula ornata Scop.	22	11	V	V
50	Scopula rubiginata Hfn.	18	19	E	E
51	Scopula marginepunctata Goeze	26	18	E	E
52	Scopula immutata L.	25	17	V	E
53	Scopula rubiginata Hfn.	18	19	E	E
54	Scopula marginepunctata Goeze	26	18	E	E
55	Scopula flaccidaria Zeller	21	14	E	—
56	Scopula corrivalaria Kretschm.	20	5	E	—
57	Scopula incanata L.	26	7	E	—
58	Timandra comae Schmidt	25	22	V	E
59	Cyclophora annularia Fabr.	20	15	E	BL
60	Cyclophora ruficiliaria H.-Sch.	27	4	E	—
61	Cyclophora punctaria L.	22	14	E	—
62	Cyclophora linearia Hbn.	29	8	BL	—
63	Philbalapteryx virgata Hfn.	23	7	E	BL
64	Lythria purpuraria L.	24	15	E	BL
65	Orthonama vittata Bkh.	24	7	E	—
66	Nycterosea obstipata Fabr.	19	16	E	BL
67	Xanthorrhoe fluctuata L.	21	20	E	BL
68	Xanthorrhoe spadicearia Den. et Schiff.	25	4	E	—
69	Xanthorrhoe ferrugata Clerck	20	16	V	V
70	Catarhoe cuculata Hfn.	24	4	E	—
71	Catarhoe rubidata Den. et Schiff.	28	6	V	V
72	Costaconvexa polygrammata Bkh.	26	7	E	—
73	Epirrhoe alternata Müller	22	15	E	BL
74	Epirrhoe galiata Den. et Schiff.	30	5	E	—
75	Pelurga comitata L.	27	13	E	V
76	Gandaritis pyraliata Den. et Schiff.	30	4	E	—
77	Operophthera brumata L.	25	11	V	—
78	Philereme vetulata Den. et Schiff.	27	9	E	BL
79	Perizoma alchemillata L.	16	10	BL	V
80	Gymnoscelis rufifasciata Haw.	17	5	E	BL
81	Pasiphila rectangulata L.	17	5	E	—
82	Eupithecia linariata Den. et Schiff.	13	14	E	V
83	Eupithecia simpliciata Haw.	22	12	E	BL
84	Eupithecia innotata Hfn.	21	4	E	BL
85	Eupithecia centaureata Den. et Schiff.	18	22	E	BL
86	Eupithecia vulgata Haw.	16	7	E	—
87	Eupithecia millefoliata Rossler	21	8	V	—
88	Aplocera plagiata L.	40	12	E	BL
89	Lithostege griseata Den. et Schiff.	29	11	E	BL
90	Lithostege farinata Hfn.	31	19	E	E
91	Abraxas grossulariata L.	37	5	E	—
92	Lomaspilis marginata L.	34	11	E	—
93	Ligdia adustata Den. et Schiff.	22	15	E	BL
94	Stegania dilectaria Hbn.	21	9	E	—
95	Macaria alternata Den. et Schiff.	24	17	E	E
96	Macaria artesiaria Den. et Schiff.	26	6	E	—
97	Narraga tessularia Metzner	15	6	E	—
98	Chiasmia clathrata L.	23	22	E	BL
99	Epione repandaria Hfn.	27	7	E	—
100	Angerona prunaria L.	40	9	E	—
101	Ennomos autumnaria Werneburg	45	16	E	BL
102	Ennomos fuscantaria Haw.	37	11	BL	—
103	Ennomos erosaria Den. et Schiff.	32	12	BL	—
104	Selenia lunaria Den. et Schiff.	39	16	E	V
105	Artiora evonymaria Den. et Schiff.	29	4	V	V
106	Crocallis elinguaria L.	36	5	E	BL
107	Colotois pennaria L.	40	8	E	—
108	Alsophila aescularia Den. et Schiff.	30	4	E	—
109	Ascotis selenaria Den. et Schiff.	43	21	E	BL
110	Lycia hirtaria Clerck	40	9	E	BL
111	Biston betularia L.	47	11	BL	BL
112	Agriopsis bajaria Den. et Schiff.	29	7	E	—
113	Therapis flavicaria Den. et Schiff.	29	5	V	—
114	Erannis defoliaria Clerck.	35	7	E	BL
115	Peribatodes rhomboidaria Den. et Schiff.	34	13	E	BL
116	Cleora cinctaria Den. et Schiff.	31	6	E	—
117	Agriopis aurantiaria Hbn.	31	20	E	BL
118	Ectropis crepuscularia L.	35	20	V	BL
119	Elicrinia trinotata Metzner	13	6	E	—
120	Heliomata glarearia Den. et Schiff.	18	14	E	BL
121	Synopsia sociaria Hbn.	36	5	E	—
122	Aethalura punctulata Den. et Schiff.	32	5	E	—
123	Ematurga atomaria L.	26	17	E	BL
124	Bupalus piniaria L.	32	4	BL	—
125	Cabera pusaria L.	26	10	E	—
126	Cabera exanthemata Scop.	32	15	E	BL
127	C. exanthemata Scop.	32	15	E	BL
128	Lomographa temerata Den. et Schiff.	24	4	E	—
129	Tephrina arenacearia Den. et Schiff.	25	22	E	BL
130	Tephrina murinaria Den. et Schiff.	28	11	E	BL
131	Thetidia smaragdaria Prout	35	15	E	—
132	Phaiogramma etruscaria Zeller	19	9	V	V
133	Hemistola chrysoprasaria Esp.	30	10	E	—
134	Thalera fimbrialis Scop.	27	16	E	—
135	Chlorissa cloraria Hbn.	15	6	E	—
136	Chlorissa viridata L.	25	20	V	V
Notodontidae (Average of wingspan is 39.7 mm)
137	Thaumetopoea processionea L.	30	8	E	BL
138	Cerura vinula L.	57	7	BL	—
139	Furcula furcula Clerk	31	12	BL	BL
140	Furcula bifida Brahm	40	16	BL	BL
141	Drymonia dodonea Den. et Schiff.	35	6	E	—
142	Drymonia querna Fabr.	41	7	E	—
143	Drymonia ruficornis Hfn.	37	4	E	—
144	Notodonta dromedarius L.	37	5	E	—
145	Notodonta ziczac L.	47	17	BL	BL
146	Notodonta tritophus Den. et Schiff.	50	6	BL	—
147	Pheosia tremula Clerk	50	14	BL	BL
148	Pterostoma palpina Clerck	45	20	V	N
149	Ptilodon capucina L.	37	5	E	—
150	Ptilophora plumigera Den. et Schiff.	38	6	E	BL
151	Spatalia argentina Den. et Schiff.	37	11	BL	—
152	Phalera bucephala L.	48	17	BL	BL
153	Gluphisia crenata Bray	35	13	E	—
154	Clostera curtula L.	31	14	V	BL
155	Clostera pigra Hfn.	24	9	E	N
156	Clostera anastomosis L.	35	14	E	BL
Erebidae (Average of wingspan is 37,7 mm)
157	Scoliopteryx libatrix L.	42	11	E	V
158	Rivula sericealis Scop.	20	21	E	E
159	Hypena proboscidalis L.	31	4	E	—
160	Hypena rostralis L.	30	12	E	E
161	Leucoma salicis L.	43	7	E	—
162	Lymantria dispar L.	43	18	BL	BL
163	Ocneria rubea Den. et Schiff.	39	6	E	E
164	Euproctis chrysorrhoea L.	39	15	E	—
165	Euproctis similis Fuessly	31	5	E	—
166	Calliteara pudibunda L.	50	7	E	—
167	Orgya antiqua L.	27	7	BL	BL
168	Hyphantria cunea Drury	38	21	E	BL
169	Spilosoma lutea Hfn.	34	18	E	BL
170	Spilosoma lubricipeda L.	41	20	E	E
171	Spilosoma urticae Esp.	42	18	E	E
172	Diaphora mendica Clerck	33	8	E	BL
173	Diacrisia sannio L.	42	14	E	—
174	Phragmatobia fuliginosa L.	32	22	BL	BL
175	Phragmatobia lucufer Den. et Schiff..	37	7	E	BL
176	Arctia caja L.	55	21	BL	BL
177	Arctia villica L.	52	14	BL	V
178	Ocnogyna parasita Hbn.	32	5	E	—
179	Chelis maculosa Gerning	33	11	E	BL
180	Miltochrista miniata Forster	25	4	E	—
181	Pelosia muscerda Hfn.	26	7	E	—
182	Thumatha senex Hbn.	17	12	E	—
183	Pelosia obtusa H-Sch.	25	8	E	BL
184	Lithosia quadra L.	45	12	E	BL
185	Eilema lurideola Zincken	31	4	E	—
186	Eilema complana L.	31	15	BL	BL
187	Eilema palliatella Scop.	34	7	BL	BL
188	Dysauxes ancilla L.	23	12	E	—
189	Eilema pygmaeola Doubleday	26	14	E	BL
190	Eilema sororcula Hfn.	28	5	BL	—
191	Paracolax tristalis Fabr.	31	11	E	—
192	Herminia tarsicrinalis Knoch.	30	8	E	V
193	Polypogon tentacularia L.	25	4	E	—
194	Zanclognatha lunalis Scop.	34	7	V	—
195	Simplicia rectalis Ev.	29	6	E	BL
196	Schrankia costaestrigalis Steph.	19	5	V	—
197	Lygephila craccae Den. et Schiff.	43	7	BL	BL
198	Phytometra viridaria Cl.	19	9	E	BL
199	Colobochyla salicalis Den. et Schiff.	28	7	E	—
200	Catocala elocata Esp.	75	10	BL	BL
201	Euclidia glyphica L.	27	14	E	E
Noctuidae (Average of wingspan is 34,73 mm)
202	Eublemma purpurina Den. et Schiff.	25	18	BL	BL
203	Abrostola triplasia L.	30	10	E	—
204	Abrostola trigemina Werneburg	37	10	E	BL
205	Autographa gamma L.	40	21	BL	BL
206	Macdunnoughia confusa Steph.	35	21	E	BL
207	Diachrysia chrysitis L.	31	21	BL	E
208	Plusia festucae L.	38	12	BL	—
209	Deltote pygarga Hfn.	21	9	E	—
210	Deltote deceptoria Scop.	24	4	E	—
211	Deltote uncula Clerck	21	13	E	—
212	Deltote bankiana Fabr.	26	11	E	—
213	Acontia lucida Hfn.	28	22	BL	BL
214	Acontia trabealis Scop.	19	22	E	BL
215	Odice arcuinna Hbn.	27	4	E	BL
216	Aedia funesta Esp.	32	20	BL	E
217	Tyta luctuosa Den. et Schiff.	23	22	E	BL
218	Colocasia coryli L.	34	10	E	—
219	Diloba caeruleocephala L.	35	15	E	—
220	Symira albovenosa Goeze.	38	10	E	V
221	Symira nervosa Den. et Schiff.	32	7	E	—
222	Acronicta tridens Den. et Schiff.	40	16	BL	BL
223	Acronicta psi L.	40	7	E	BL
224	Acronicta aceris L.	45	4	BL	BL
225	Acronicta rumicis L.	34	21	BL	BL
226	Acronicta megacephala Den. et Schiff.	42	20	BL	BL
227	Oxycesta geographica Fabr.	25	4	V	V
228	Craniophora ligustri Den. et Schiff.	38	10	BL	—
229	Cucullia umbratica L.	47	22	BL	BL
230	Cucullia chamomillae Den. et Schiff.	41	4	E	BL
231	Cucullia lactucae Den. et Schiff.	48	5	BL	—
232	Cucullia fraudatrix Ev.	38	6	E	—
233	Lamprosticta culta Den. et Schiff.	42	4	BL	BL
234	Ammoconia caecimacula Den. et Schiff.	42	10	BL	BL
235	Calophasia lunula Hfn.	29	18	E	BL
236	Amphipyra pyramidea L.	46	5	BL	BL
237	Amphipyra livida Den. et Schiff.	42	8	E	BL
238	Amphipyra tragopoginis Clerck	35	17	BL	BL
239	Asteroscopus sphinx Hfn.	44	11	E	—
240	Allophyes oxyacanthae L.	42	7	E	BL
241	Pyrrhia umbra Hfn.	31	15	E	BL
242	Protoschinia scutosa Den. et Schiff.	33	5	E	—
243	Heliothis viriplaca Hfn.	33	21	BL	BL
244	Heliothis maritima Graslin	33	22	BL	BL
245	Periphanes delphinii L.	36	19	BL	BL
246	Acosmetia caliginosa Hbn.	27	10	V	E
247	Eucarta virgo Tr.	35	13	E	—
248	Cryphia algae Fabr.	27	4	BL	—
249	Cryphia raptricula Den. et Schiff.	32	10	BL	—
250	Pseudeustrotia candidula Den. et Schiff.	22	21	E	BL
251	Spodoptera exigua Hbn.	29	12	BL	BL
252	Elaphria venustula Hbn.	21	7	E	—
253	Episema glaucina Esp.	36	9	E	E
254	Episema tersa Den. et Schiff.	36	11	BL	BL
255	Caradrina morpheus Hfn.	35	17	E	BL
256	Platyperigea kadenii Freyer	30	8	BL	BL
257	Paradrina clavipalpis Scop.	30	21	BL	BL
258	Hoplodrina respersa Hbn.	30	8	BL	V
259	Hoplodrina alsines Brahm.	31	17	BL	BL
260	Hoplodrina respersa Den. et Schiff.	31	4	E	—
261	Hoplodrina blanda Den. et Schiff.	33	14	BL	BL
262	Hoplodrina ambigua Den. et Schiff.	33	19	BL	BL
263	Chilodes maritimus Tauscher	33	7	E	BL
264	Charanyca trigrammica Hfn.	37	16	E	BL
265	Athetis gluteosa Tr.	25	19	E	BL
266	Athetis furvula Hbn.	20	11	E	—
267	Dypterygia scabriuscula L.	34	13	E	BL
268	Trachea atriplicis L.	40	12	E	—
269	Actinotia polyodon Clerck	33	5	E	—
270	Phlogophora meticulosa L.	47	12	BL	BL
271	Euplexia lucipara L.	29	7	E	—
272	Gortyna flavago Den. et Schiff.	37	9	E	—
273	Hydraecia micacea Esp.	36	5	E	BL
274	Luperina testacea Den. et Schiff.	32	22	E	BL
275	Rhizedra lutosa Hbn.	46	18	BL	BL
276	Nonagria typhae Thnbg.	47	6	E	BL
277	Archanara geminipuncta Haw.	29	5	E	BL
278	Archanara dissoluta Tr.	30	4	E	—
279	Denticucullus pygmina Haw.	26	10	E	BL
280	Photedes fluxa Hbn.	28	9	E	BL
281	Globia sparganii Esp.	36	8	E	—
282	Globia algae Esp.	38	7	E	—
283	Apamea anceps Den. et Schiff.	37	15	BL	—
284	Apamea sordens Hfn.	38	16	E	E
285	Apamea monoglypha Hfn.	50	13	BL	BL
286	Apamea sublustris Esp.	42	5	E	V
287	Mesapamea secalis L.	28	7	BL	—
288	Mesoligia furuncula Den. et Schiff.	25	9	E	BL
289	Oligia latruncula Den. et Schiff.	25	19	E	E
290	Oligia strigilis L.	23	17	BL	E
291	Xanthia gilvago Den. et Schiff.	36	4	BL	—
292	Xanthia ocellaris Bkh.	37	8	E	BL
293	Aegle kaekeritziana Hbn.	26	9	E	V
294	Mesogona acetosellae Den. et Schiff.	42	5	BL	BL
295	Agrochola lychnidis Den. et Schiff.	39	19	BL	BL
296	Agrochola litura L.	32	15	BL	BL
297	Agrochola helvola L.	41	4	E	—
298	Agrochola lota Clerck	36	9	E	BL
299	Agrochola circellaris Hfn.	37	5	E	—
300	Agrochola humilis Den. et Schiff.	38	6	BL	—
301	Ammoconia caecimacula Den. et Schiff.	42	10	BL	BL
302	Conistra vaccinii L.	32	16	E	BL
303	Conistra rubiginosa Scop.	35	6	E	—
304	Conistra erythrocephala Den. et Schiff.	38	7	E	—
305	Eupsilia transversa Hfn.	37	13	E	—
306	Cosmia affinis L.	31	7	BL	—
307	Cosmia trapezina L.	29	13	E	BL
308	Cosmia pyralina Den. et Schiff.	31	4	E	—
309	Atethmia centrago Haw.	34	4	E	BL
310	Drybotodes tenebrosa Esp.	35	9	E	—
311	Aporophyla lutulenta Den. et Schiff.	40	7	E	—
312	Orthosia incerta Hfn.	37	11	BL	BL
313	Orthosia miniosa Den. et Schiff.	33	8	BL	—
314	Orthosia cerasi Fabr.	37	9	BL	—
315	Orthosia cruda Den. et Schiff.	27	10	BL	—
316	Orthosia populeti Fabr.	37	4	E	—
317	Orthosia gracilis Den. et Schiff.	37	10	E	BL
318	Orthosia opima Hbn.	37	5	E	—
319	Orthosia gothica L.	32	11	E	—
320	Anorthoa munda Den. et Schiff.	41	9	BL	—
321	Egira conspicillaris L.	39	13	BL	BL
322	Tholera cespitis Den. et Schiff.	37	15	E	BL
323	Tholera decimalis Poda	38	21	E	BL
324	Anarta trifolii Hfn.	32	5	BL	BL
325	Polia nebulosa Hfn.	50	4	E	—
326	Proxellus lepigone Mschl.	28	20	E	BL
327	Pachetra sagittigera Hfn.	44	7	E	BL
328	Lacanobia w-latinum Hfn.	39	17	BL	BL
329	Lacanobia thalassina Hfn.	36	11	BL	BL
330	Lacanobia suasa Den. et Schiff.	34	22	E	BL
331	Lacanobia oleracea L.	34	22	BL	BL
332	Sideritis albicolon Hbn.	42	14	BL	E
333	Sideritis reticulata Goeze	34	9	E	E
334	Melanchra persicariae L.	38	4	BL	—
335	Melanchra pisi L.	34	10	E	BL
336	Hada plebeja L.	33	12	E	—
337	Mamestra brassicae L.	41	21	BL	BL
338	Hecatera dysodea Den. et Schiff.	33	9	BL	BL
339	Harmodia bicruris Hfn.	35	18	BL	BL
340	Conisania luteago Den. et Schiff.	38	20	E	E
341	Hadena rivularis Fabr.	28	11	BL	BL
342	Hadula dianthi Wagner	35	8	E	BL
343	Harmodia perplexa Den. et Schiff.	31	13	E	—
344	Hyssia cavernosa Ev.	31	10	E	—
345	Mythimna turca L.	41	8	BL	—
346	Mythimna pudorina Den. et Schiff.	36	4	E	—
347	Mythimna pallens L.	32	22	BL	BL
348	Mythimna vitellina Hbn.	39	10	BL	BL
349	Mythimna ferrago Fabr.	37	7	BL	BL
350	Mythimna l-album L.	32	21	BL	BL
351	Leucania obsoleta Hbn.	38	12	BL	BL
352	Peridroma saucia Hbn.	50	11	BL	BL
353	Euxoa obelisca Tutt	37	11	BL	BL
354	Euxoa temera Hbn.	32	10	BL	BL
355	Euxoa aquilina Den. et Schiff.	35	10	E	—
356	Agrotis cinerea Den. et Schiff.	36	7	E	E
357	Agrotis exclamationis L.	35	22	BL	BL
358	Agrotis segetum Den. et Schiff.	33	22	BL	BL
359	Agrotis vestigialis Hfn.	32	4	E	—
360	Agrotis ipsilon Hfn.	42	22	BL	BL
361	Agrotis crassa Hbn.	44	18	BL	BL
362	Axylia putris L.	29	21	BL	BL
363	Ochropleura plecta L.	27	21	BL	BL
364	Parexarnis fugax Tr.	35	5	E	—
365	Diarsia rubi Vieweg	30	6	E	BL
366	Cerastis rubricosa Den. et Schiff.	35	9	E	—
367	Noctua pronuba L.	50	22	BL	BL
368	Noctua fimbriata Schreber	47	14	BL	BL
369	Noctua comes Hbn.	41	4	E	—
370	Noctua janthina Den. et Schiff.	35	6	BL	BL
371	Spaelothis ravida Den. et Schiff.	45	8	E	BL
372	Xestia xanthographa Den. et Schiff.	33	11	BL	BL
373	Xestia c-nigrum L.	38	22	BL	BL
374	Xestia triangulum Hfn.	41	15	BL	—
375	Eugnorisma depuncta L.	40	10	BL	—
Nolidae (Average of wingspan is 23.2 mm)
376	Meganola albula Den. et Schiff.	21	5	E	—
377	Nola aerugula Hbn.	17	7	E	—
378	Pseudoips prasinana L.	36	15	BL	BL
379	Nycteola asiatica Kruilkovsky	23	15	BL	BL
380	Earias clorana L.	21	14	E	BL
381	Earias vernana Fabr.	21	11	E	BL

Table 1.

Macrolepidoptera species collected successfully by Visible or BL light-traps.

Notes Macrolepidoptera species collected successfully by V Visible or BL black light traps, E equal N serial number, A Wingspan (mm), B Network: Number of trap pairs, C Network: More efficient light source, D Nagytétény: More efficient light source.

We established from the material of the national light-trap network that the BL traps are unquestionably more efficient in collecting several species of the Sphingidae, Notodontidae, and Noctuidae. Several species of the Geometridae and Erebidae families fly to BL and visible traps in equal numbers. However, at Nagytétény, the species of the latter two families clearly flew much more frequently into the BL trap. None of the five families include species that could be captured only by one or the other type of trap.

Figure 1 shows that at no-choice sites, such as the national network traps, 30 mm wingspan is approximately the limit below which some species can be trapped more effectively by using the visible trap rather than the BL type. Above 35 mm wingspan, the catch of the BL approaches 100%. At Nagytétény, however, where the visible and the BL traps were placed so close together that the moths could see both at the same time, even the moths having the smallest wingspan were caught more than 60% by BL trap (Figure 2). These results agree broadly with the previous literature although they do not address mercury light sources, which emit light in both BL and V ranges.

Figure 1.

Percentage of BL traps catch of macrolepidoptera species compared to the visible light ones in connection with the wingspan of moths (solid line = BL, dashed line = visible light).

Figure 2.

Percentage of BL traps catch of macrolepidoptera species compared to the visible light ones in connection with the wingspan of moths (Nagytétény).

Figure 3 shows that the number of the species collected in nearly equal proportions by visible and BL traps significantly declines with increasing wingspan.

Figure 3.

Percentage of macrolepidoptera species caught by BL traps and visible light ones in connection with the wingspan of moths, if they select in equal proportion the two type light-traps.

It is most remarkable, however, that the number of species for which the results of the national light-trap network could not detect a significant difference between BL and N traps was much smaller at Nagytétény where the BL trap was most frequently chosen by insects (Figures 4–8). So provided the moths are free to choose between traps placed extremely close to each other, they will fly to the BL trap. If the visible and BL traps are very close to each other, even the small moths choose the BL traps en masse. However, such cases would be expected to be a random choice of the moths.

Figure 4.

Percentage of light-trap catch of Geometridae species by BL and visible light sources from data of the Hungarian light-trap network and Nagytétény.

Figure 5.

Percentage of light-trap catch of Geometridae species by BL and visible light sources from data of the Hungarian light-trap network and Nagytétény.

Figure 6.

Percentage of light-trap catch of Notodontidae species by BL and visible light sources from data of Hungarian light-trap network and Nagytétény.

Figure 7.

Percentage of light-trap catch of Erebidae species by BL and visible light sources from the data of the Hungarian light-trap network and Nagytétény.

Figure 8.

Percentage of light-trap catch of Noctuidae species by BL and visible light sources from the data of the Hungarian light-trap network and Nagytétény.

The fact that the highest number of moths with a wingspan greater than 35 mm, is in the BL traps, does not mean that these species cannot be collected with a visible bulb. However, it is clear that the visible or visible light source has low efficiency in collecting moths with wingspans greater than 35 mm. This result is noteworthy and can be used in plant protection and for another entomological research.

The light source of the trap should be chosen to suit our target species while bearing in mind their wingspan size.

The BL trap seems most efficient for operation for plant protecting purposes, despite the fact that their use is far more problematic.

Insect species are not only endangered by light trapping but also by the light pollution of urban areas. Our results confirm that the different light sources should incur mortality on different species to differing levels. Such differential mortality from artificial light sources could disturb the balance of life in biological communities. Kollings [52] established that there was a definite difference in the composition of the catch from two neighbouring street lamps. According to Frank [53], if some moth species are more attracted to light than others, the traits related to this attraction could help us to predict the effects of artificial light on communities of nocturnal species.

Light pollution might, in the future, expand to cover new areas. Some species may have populations more influenced by light pollution than others and some individuals might be more prone to it than others. This may generate a selective pressure to change behaviour. On the other hand, densely lit urban environments may be advantageous for other species that fly by day or are not attracted to light. And there are also possibilities to solve the problem of light pollution. The use of low-pressure sodium lamps, for instance, may reduce the disturbing effects of illumination. These provoke a reaction of flying to light to a lesser extent than other lamps do. At the same time, they are also less likely to disturb the circadian rhythm of moths and other insects. These lamps also emit less energy than other lamps providing the same illumination. In an experiment by Eisenbeis and Hassel [54], the use of sodium vapour street lamps reduced the number of insects caught by 50%, including a 75% reduction in the number of moths.