Macrolepidoptera species collected successfully by Visible or BL light-traps.
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.
Keywords
- moths
- wingspan
- light-trap
- visible and BL light sources
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 (
Pappas and Eaton [4] found that the ocelli of the Tobacco Hornworm (
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 (
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 (
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
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 (
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 (
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 (
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 (
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 (
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 (
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:
where “
The value of the correlation index can be determined from the relationship:
where
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 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 24 | 10 | E | — | |
2 | 31 | 6 | E | — | |
3 | 30 | 5 | E | — | |
4 | 20 | 20 | E | E | |
5 | 36 | 4 | E | — | |
6 | 37 | 5 | E | — | |
7 | 35 | 4 | BL | — | |
8 | 40 | 7 | E | — | |
9 | 37 | 6 | E | — | |
10 | 27 | 5 | E | — | |
11 | 30 | 12 | E | — | |
12 | 47 | 6 | E | BL | |
13 | 40 | 17 | BL | — | |
14 | 52 | 11 | E | — | |
15 | 35 | 11 | BL | — | |
16 | 70 | 17 | BL | E | |
17 | 115 | 7 | BL | — | |
18 | 50 | 5 | BL | — | |
19 | 67 | 12 | BL | BL | |
20 | 75 | 21 | BL | BL | |
21 | 77 | 17 | BL | V | |
22 | 100 | 5 | E | — | |
23 | 100 | 14 | BL | — | |
24 | 105 | 19 | BL | E | |
25 | 77 | 11 | BL | — | |
26 | 45 | 5 | E | — | |
27 | 53 | 14 | BL | — | |
28 | 43 | 14 | BL | BL | |
29 | 65 | 21 | BL | BL | |
30 | 27 | 16 | E | BL | |
31 | 13 | 6 | E | V | |
32 | 22 | 5 | E | — | |
33 | 11 | 4 | BL | — | |
34 | 19 | 8 | E | — | |
35 | 20 | 17 | E | BL | |
36 | 22 | 4 | V | — | |
37 | 20 | 12 | E | BL | |
38 | 20 | 12 | V | V | |
39 | 16 | 5 | V | — | |
40 | 20 | 5 | E | BL | |
41 | 16 | 17 | V | V | |
42 | 20 | 4 | E | BL | |
43 | 26 | 16 | E | BL | |
44 | 28 | 7 | E | BL | |
45 | 30 | 10 | E | BL | |
46 | 23 | 17 | E | BL | |
47 | 31 | 4 | E | — | |
48 | 20 | 20 | V | E | |
49 | 22 | 11 | V | V | |
50 | 18 | 19 | E | E | |
51 | 26 | 18 | E | E | |
52 | 25 | 17 | V | E | |
53 | 18 | 19 | E | E | |
54 | 26 | 18 | E | E | |
55 | 21 | 14 | E | — | |
56 | 20 | 5 | E | — | |
57 | 26 | 7 | E | — | |
58 | 25 | 22 | V | E | |
59 | 20 | 15 | E | BL | |
60 | 27 | 4 | E | — | |
61 | 22 | 14 | E | — | |
62 | 29 | 8 | BL | — | |
63 | 23 | 7 | E | BL | |
64 | 24 | 15 | E | BL | |
65 | 24 | 7 | E | — | |
66 | 19 | 16 | E | BL | |
67 | 21 | 20 | E | BL | |
68 | 25 | 4 | E | — | |
69 | 20 | 16 | V | V | |
70 | 24 | 4 | E | — | |
71 | 28 | 6 | V | V | |
72 | 26 | 7 | E | — | |
73 | 22 | 15 | E | BL | |
74 | 30 | 5 | E | — | |
75 | 27 | 13 | E | V | |
76 | 30 | 4 | E | — | |
77 | 25 | 11 | V | — | |
78 | 27 | 9 | E | BL | |
79 | 16 | 10 | BL | V | |
80 | 17 | 5 | E | BL | |
81 | 17 | 5 | E | — | |
82 | 13 | 14 | E | V | |
83 | 22 | 12 | E | BL | |
84 | 21 | 4 | E | BL | |
85 | 18 | 22 | E | BL | |
86 | 16 | 7 | E | — | |
87 | 21 | 8 | V | — | |
88 | 40 | 12 | E | BL | |
89 | 29 | 11 | E | BL | |
90 | 31 | 19 | E | E | |
91 | 37 | 5 | E | — | |
92 | 34 | 11 | E | — | |
93 | 22 | 15 | E | BL | |
94 | 21 | 9 | E | — | |
95 | 24 | 17 | E | E | |
96 | 26 | 6 | E | — | |
97 | 15 | 6 | E | — | |
98 | 23 | 22 | E | BL | |
99 | 27 | 7 | E | — | |
100 | 40 | 9 | E | — | |
101 | 45 | 16 | E | BL | |
102 | 37 | 11 | BL | — | |
103 | 32 | 12 | BL | — | |
104 | 39 | 16 | E | V | |
105 | 29 | 4 | V | V | |
106 | 36 | 5 | E | BL | |
107 | 40 | 8 | E | — | |
108 | 30 | 4 | E | — | |
109 | 43 | 21 | E | BL | |
110 | 40 | 9 | E | BL | |
111 | 47 | 11 | BL | BL | |
112 | 29 | 7 | E | — | |
113 | 29 | 5 | V | — | |
114 | 35 | 7 | E | BL | |
115 | 34 | 13 | E | BL | |
116 | 31 | 6 | E | — | |
117 | 31 | 20 | E | BL | |
118 | 35 | 20 | V | BL | |
119 | 13 | 6 | E | — | |
120 | 18 | 14 | E | BL | |
121 | 36 | 5 | E | — | |
122 | 32 | 5 | E | — | |
123 | 26 | 17 | E | BL | |
124 | 32 | 4 | BL | — | |
125 | 26 | 10 | E | — | |
126 | 32 | 15 | E | BL | |
127 | 32 | 15 | E | BL | |
128 | 24 | 4 | E | — | |
129 | 25 | 22 | E | BL | |
130 | 28 | 11 | E | BL | |
131 | 35 | 15 | E | — | |
132 | 19 | 9 | V | V | |
133 | 30 | 10 | E | — | |
134 | 27 | 16 | E | — | |
135 | 15 | 6 | E | — | |
136 | 25 | 20 | V | V | |
137 | 30 | 8 | E | BL | |
138 | 57 | 7 | BL | — | |
139 | 31 | 12 | BL | BL | |
140 | 40 | 16 | BL | BL | |
141 | 35 | 6 | E | — | |
142 | 41 | 7 | E | — | |
143 | 37 | 4 | E | — | |
144 | 37 | 5 | E | — | |
145 | 47 | 17 | BL | BL | |
146 | 50 | 6 | BL | — | |
147 | 50 | 14 | BL | BL | |
148 | 45 | 20 | V | N | |
149 | 37 | 5 | E | — | |
150 | 38 | 6 | E | BL | |
151 | 37 | 11 | BL | — | |
152 | 48 | 17 | BL | BL | |
153 | 35 | 13 | E | — | |
154 | 31 | 14 | V | BL | |
155 | 24 | 9 | E | N | |
156 | 35 | 14 | E | BL | |
157 | 42 | 11 | E | V | |
158 | 20 | 21 | E | E | |
159 | 31 | 4 | E | — | |
160 | 30 | 12 | E | E | |
161 | 43 | 7 | E | — | |
162 | 43 | 18 | BL | BL | |
163 | 39 | 6 | E | E | |
164 | 39 | 15 | E | — | |
165 | 31 | 5 | E | — | |
166 | 50 | 7 | E | — | |
167 | 27 | 7 | BL | BL | |
168 | 38 | 21 | E | BL | |
169 | 34 | 18 | E | BL | |
170 | 41 | 20 | E | E | |
171 | 42 | 18 | E | E | |
172 | 33 | 8 | E | BL | |
173 | 42 | 14 | E | — | |
174 | 32 | 22 | BL | BL | |
175 | 37 | 7 | E | BL | |
176 | 55 | 21 | BL | BL | |
177 | 52 | 14 | BL | V | |
178 | 32 | 5 | E | — | |
179 | 33 | 11 | E | BL | |
180 | 25 | 4 | E | — | |
181 | 26 | 7 | E | — | |
182 | 17 | 12 | E | — | |
183 | 25 | 8 | E | BL | |
184 | 45 | 12 | E | BL | |
185 | 31 | 4 | E | — | |
186 | 31 | 15 | BL | BL | |
187 | 34 | 7 | BL | BL | |
188 | 23 | 12 | E | — | |
189 | 26 | 14 | E | BL | |
190 | 28 | 5 | BL | — | |
191 | 31 | 11 | E | — | |
192 | 30 | 8 | E | V | |
193 | 25 | 4 | E | — | |
194 | 34 | 7 | V | — | |
195 | 29 | 6 | E | BL | |
196 | 19 | 5 | V | — | |
197 | 43 | 7 | BL | BL | |
198 | 19 | 9 | E | BL | |
199 | 28 | 7 | E | — | |
200 | 75 | 10 | BL | BL | |
201 | Euclidia glyphica L. | 27 | 14 | E | E |
202 | 25 | 18 | BL | BL | |
203 | 30 | 10 | E | — | |
204 | 37 | 10 | E | BL | |
205 | 40 | 21 | BL | BL | |
206 | 35 | 21 | E | BL | |
207 | 31 | 21 | BL | E | |
208 | 38 | 12 | BL | — | |
209 | 21 | 9 | E | — | |
210 | 24 | 4 | E | — | |
211 | 21 | 13 | E | — | |
212 | 26 | 11 | E | — | |
213 | 28 | 22 | BL | BL | |
214 | 19 | 22 | E | BL | |
215 | 27 | 4 | E | BL | |
216 | 32 | 20 | BL | E | |
217 | 23 | 22 | E | BL | |
218 | 34 | 10 | E | — | |
219 | 35 | 15 | E | — | |
220 | 38 | 10 | E | V | |
221 | 32 | 7 | E | — | |
222 | 40 | 16 | BL | BL | |
223 | 40 | 7 | E | BL | |
224 | 45 | 4 | BL | BL | |
225 | 34 | 21 | BL | BL | |
226 | 42 | 20 | BL | BL | |
227 | 25 | 4 | V | V | |
228 | 38 | 10 | BL | — | |
229 | 47 | 22 | BL | BL | |
230 | 41 | 4 | E | BL | |
231 | 48 | 5 | BL | — | |
232 | 38 | 6 | E | — | |
233 | 42 | 4 | BL | BL | |
234 | 42 | 10 | BL | BL | |
235 | 29 | 18 | E | BL | |
236 | 46 | 5 | BL | BL | |
237 | 42 | 8 | E | BL | |
238 | 35 | 17 | BL | BL | |
239 | 44 | 11 | E | — | |
240 | 42 | 7 | E | BL | |
241 | 31 | 15 | E | BL | |
242 | 33 | 5 | E | — | |
243 | 33 | 21 | BL | BL | |
244 | 33 | 22 | BL | BL | |
245 | 36 | 19 | BL | BL | |
246 | 27 | 10 | V | E | |
247 | 35 | 13 | E | — | |
248 | 27 | 4 | BL | — | |
249 | 32 | 10 | BL | — | |
250 | Pseudeustrotia candidula Den. et Schiff. | 22 | 21 | E | BL |
251 | 29 | 12 | BL | BL | |
252 | 21 | 7 | E | — | |
253 | 36 | 9 | E | E | |
254 | 36 | 11 | BL | BL | |
255 | 35 | 17 | E | BL | |
256 | 30 | 8 | BL | BL | |
257 | 30 | 21 | BL | BL | |
258 | 30 | 8 | BL | V | |
259 | 31 | 17 | BL | BL | |
260 | 31 | 4 | E | — | |
261 | 33 | 14 | BL | BL | |
262 | 33 | 19 | BL | BL | |
263 | 33 | 7 | E | BL | |
264 | 37 | 16 | E | BL | |
265 | 25 | 19 | E | BL | |
266 | 20 | 11 | E | — | |
267 | 34 | 13 | E | BL | |
268 | 40 | 12 | E | — | |
269 | 33 | 5 | E | — | |
270 | 47 | 12 | BL | BL | |
271 | 29 | 7 | E | — | |
272 | 37 | 9 | E | — | |
273 | 36 | 5 | E | BL | |
274 | 32 | 22 | E | BL | |
275 | 46 | 18 | BL | BL | |
276 | 47 | 6 | E | BL | |
277 | 29 | 5 | E | BL | |
278 | 30 | 4 | E | — | |
279 | 26 | 10 | E | BL | |
280 | 28 | 9 | E | BL | |
281 | 36 | 8 | E | — | |
282 | 38 | 7 | E | — | |
283 | 37 | 15 | BL | — | |
284 | 38 | 16 | E | E | |
285 | 50 | 13 | BL | BL | |
286 | 42 | 5 | E | V | |
287 | 28 | 7 | BL | — | |
288 | 25 | 9 | E | BL | |
289 | 25 | 19 | E | E | |
290 | 23 | 17 | BL | E | |
291 | 36 | 4 | BL | — | |
292 | 37 | 8 | E | BL | |
293 | 26 | 9 | E | V | |
294 | 42 | 5 | BL | BL | |
295 | 39 | 19 | BL | BL | |
296 | 32 | 15 | BL | BL | |
297 | 41 | 4 | E | — | |
298 | 36 | 9 | E | BL | |
299 | 37 | 5 | E | — | |
300 | 38 | 6 | BL | — | |
301 | 42 | 10 | BL | BL | |
302 | 32 | 16 | E | BL | |
303 | 35 | 6 | E | — | |
304 | 38 | 7 | E | — | |
305 | 37 | 13 | E | — | |
306 | 31 | 7 | BL | — | |
307 | 29 | 13 | E | BL | |
308 | 31 | 4 | E | — | |
309 | 34 | 4 | E | BL | |
310 | 35 | 9 | E | — | |
311 | 40 | 7 | E | — | |
312 | 37 | 11 | BL | BL | |
313 | 33 | 8 | BL | — | |
314 | 37 | 9 | BL | — | |
315 | 27 | 10 | BL | — | |
316 | 37 | 4 | E | — | |
317 | 37 | 10 | E | BL | |
318 | 37 | 5 | E | — | |
319 | 32 | 11 | E | — | |
320 | 41 | 9 | BL | — | |
321 | 39 | 13 | BL | BL | |
322 | 37 | 15 | E | BL | |
323 | 38 | 21 | E | BL | |
324 | 32 | 5 | BL | BL | |
325 | 50 | 4 | E | — | |
326 | 28 | 20 | E | BL | |
327 | 44 | 7 | E | BL | |
328 | 39 | 17 | BL | BL | |
329 | 36 | 11 | BL | BL | |
330 | 34 | 22 | E | BL | |
331 | 34 | 22 | BL | BL | |
332 | 42 | 14 | BL | E | |
333 | 34 | 9 | E | E | |
334 | 38 | 4 | BL | — | |
335 | 34 | 10 | E | BL | |
336 | 33 | 12 | E | — | |
337 | 41 | 21 | BL | BL | |
338 | 33 | 9 | BL | BL | |
339 | 35 | 18 | BL | BL | |
340 | 38 | 20 | E | E | |
341 | 28 | 11 | BL | BL | |
342 | 35 | 8 | E | BL | |
343 | 31 | 13 | E | — | |
344 | 31 | 10 | E | — | |
345 | 41 | 8 | BL | — | |
346 | 36 | 4 | E | — | |
347 | 32 | 22 | BL | BL | |
348 | 39 | 10 | BL | BL | |
349 | 37 | 7 | BL | BL | |
350 | 32 | 21 | BL | BL | |
351 | 38 | 12 | BL | BL | |
352 | 50 | 11 | BL | BL | |
353 | 37 | 11 | BL | BL | |
354 | 32 | 10 | BL | BL | |
355 | 35 | 10 | E | — | |
356 | 36 | 7 | E | E | |
357 | 35 | 22 | BL | BL | |
358 | 33 | 22 | BL | BL | |
359 | 32 | 4 | E | — | |
360 | 42 | 22 | BL | BL | |
361 | 44 | 18 | BL | BL | |
362 | 29 | 21 | BL | BL | |
363 | 27 | 21 | BL | BL | |
364 | 35 | 5 | E | — | |
365 | 30 | 6 | E | BL | |
366 | 35 | 9 | E | — | |
367 | 50 | 22 | BL | BL | |
368 | 47 | 14 | BL | BL | |
369 | 41 | 4 | E | — | |
370 | 35 | 6 | BL | BL | |
371 | 45 | 8 | E | BL | |
372 | 33 | 11 | BL | BL | |
373 | 38 | 22 | BL | BL | |
374 | 41 | 15 | BL | — | |
375 | 40 | 10 | BL | — | |
376 | 21 | 5 | E | — | |
377 | 17 | 7 | E | — | |
378 | 36 | 15 | BL | BL | |
379 | 23 | 15 | BL | BL | |
380 | 21 | 14 | E | BL | |
381 | 21 | 11 | E | BL |
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 3 shows that the number of the species collected in nearly equal proportions by visible and BL traps significantly declines with increasing wingspan.
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.
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.
References
- 1.
Mikkola K. Behavioural and electrophysiological responses of night-flying insects, especially Lepidoptera, to near-ultraviolet and visible light. Annales Zoologici Fennici. 1972; 9 :225-254 - 2.
McFarlane JH, Eaton JL. Comparison of electroretinogram and electromyogram responses to radiant energy stimulation in the moth Trichoplusia ni . Journal of Insect Physiology. 1973;19 (4):811-822 - 3.
Agee HR. Spectral sensitivity of the compound eyes of field-collected adult bollworms and tobacco budworms. Annals of the Entomological Society of America. 1973; 66 :613-615 - 4.
Pappas LG, Eaton JL. The internal ocellus of Manduca sexta and spectral sensitivity. Journal of Insect Physiology. 1977;23 (1-2):1355-1358 - 5.
Eguchi E, Watanabe K, Hariyama T, Yamamoto K. A comparison of electrophysiologically determined spectral responses in 35 species of Lepidoptera. Journal of Insect Physiology. 1982; 28 (8):675-682 - 6.
Gui HL, Porter LC, Prideaux GF. Response of insects to color, intensity, and distribution of light. Agricultural Engineering. 1942; 23 :51-58 - 7.
Taylor JG, Deay HO. Electric lamps and traps in Corn Borer control. Agricultural Engineering. 1950; 31 (10):513-505 - 8.
Frost SW. Response of insects to black and white light. Journal of Economic Entomology. 1954; 47 (2):275-279 - 9.
Belton P, Kempster RH. Some factors affecting the catches of Lepidoptera in light traps. The Canadian Entomologist. 1963; 95 (2):832-837 - 10.
Sifter F. The use of the UV light trap for studying the flight of Curculio (Balaninus )elephas (in Hungarian). Növényvédelem. 1871;7 (3):108-110 - 11.
Bürgés Gy, Nowinszky L, Puskás J, Herczig B. Comparative study of Macrolepidoptera caught in light-trap operating with normal and UV light. In: 55th International Symposium on Crop Protection. Ghent. 2003. p. 140 - 12.
Nabli H, Baily WC, Necibi S. Beneficial insect attraction to light traps with different wavelengths. Biological Control. 1999; 16 (2):185-188 - 13.
Mészáros Z. A comparison of the Microlepidoptera materials collected by normal and UV light-traps (in Hungarian). Folia Entomologica Hungarica. 1966; 19 (3):109-131 - 14.
Puskás J, Nowinszky L. Comparison of Macrolepidoptera data collected by normal and UV light-traps at Bakony-highlands (in Hungarian). Folia Musei Historico-Naturalis Bakonyiensis Zirc. 1994, 1994; 13 :89-105 - 15.
Day A, Reid WJ. Response of adult Southern Potato Wireworms to light traps. Journal of Economic Entomology. 1969; 62 (2):314-318 - 16.
Teel PD, VanCleave HW, Hollingsworth JP, Harstack AW. Spectral sensitivity of the Hickory Shuckworm to electromagnetic radiation. Journal of Economic Entomology. 1976; 69 (1):57-58 - 17.
Skuhravý V, Skuhravá M, Brewer W. The saddle gall midge Haplodiposis marginata (Diptera: Cecidomyidae) in Czech Republic and Slovak Republic from 1971-1989. Acta Societatis Zoologicae Bohemicae. 1993;57 :117-137 - 18.
Cleve K. Einfluß der Wellenlänge des Lichtes auf den Lichtfang der Schmetterlinge. In: Titschak E, editor. Deutscher Entomologentag in Hamburg. 1954; 30 (3):107–113 - 19.
Belton P, Kempster RH. Some factors affecting the catches of Lepidoptera in light traps. The Canadian Entomologist. 1963; 95 (2):832-883 - 20.
Jászainé VE. Miridae species (Heteroptera) in the material of normal and blacklight traps of Hungarian light-trap network in 1963 (in Hungarian). Folia Entomologica Hungarica. 1964; 17 :471-524 - 21.
Theowald BR. Faunistische en fenologische waarnemingen met betrekking tot langpootmuggen (Diptera, Tipulidae). Fenologisch en faunistisch ondezoek over boom-gardinsekten. Wageningen. Versl. Landbounk. Onderz. 1963; 139 :185-202 - 22.
Jászainé VE. The swarming and distribution in Hungary of the cicadas spreading viruses Laodelphax striatella (Fallén) andJavesella pellucida (Fabricius, Homoptera, Areopidae) on the basis of the data of the national-wide light-trap network (in Hungarian). Növényvédelem. 1969;5 (1):7-15 - 23.
Voigt E, Vojnits A. Observation of the species Eupoecilia ambiguella Hbn. andLobesia botrana Den. et Schiff. by means of light-traps (in Hungarian). Növényvédelem. 1970;6 (8):352-357 - 24.
Komlódi J. Biology of the Eurasian Hemp Moth ( Grapholita delineata Walker) and results of control experiments (in Hungarian). Növényvédelem. 1970;6 (8):343-348 - 25.
Blomberg O, Itämies J, Kuusela K. Insect catch in a blended and a black light-trap in northern Finland. Oikos. 1976; 27 :57-63 - 26.
Gál T, GY B, Eke I. Observation on the seasonal flight period of chestnut pests: a comparison of methods (in Hungarian). In: 23. Növényvédelmi Tudományos Napok. Budapest. 1976; 1976 :203-211 - 27.
Bürgés GY, Gál T. Zur Verbreitung und Lebensweise des Kastanienrüßlers ( Curculio elephas Gyll., Col.: Curculionidae) in Ungarn. Zeitschrift für angewandte Entomologie. 1981;91 (4): 375–382 - 28.
Bürgés GY. Light-trap catch depending on the power, colour and height of the light sources (in Hungarian). In: 4th Hungarian Ecological Congress, Pécs, 1997. p. 43 - 29.
Járfás J, Szabó E, Sohajda I. Evaluation of meteorological factors influencing the signalization of Silver Y (Autorgapha gamma L.) based on light-trap (in Hungarian) Kertészeti Egyetem Közleményei. 1975; 29 :167–174 - 30.
Járfás J, Tóth J. Forecast and protection of the damaging Melolontha species in vineyard (in Hungarian). Szőlőtermesztési Agrokémiai Tájékoztató, Kecskemét. 1977; 3 (1):2-7 - 31.
Járfás J., Szabó E., Ladics L. Prediction of Codling Moth (Cydia pomonella L.) and the investigation of climatic factors modifying its swarming (in Hungary). In: Scientific Session of the Performances of “János Lippay”. 1977 p. 2396–2419 - 32.
Járfás J, Viola M. Experience gained in the light-trap observation of the Pea Podborer (Etiella zinckenella Treitschke) (in Hungarian). A Kertészeti Egyetem Közleményei. 1984; 221–227 - 33.
Járfás J, Viola M. The results of the observations of special light-traps for Beet Webworm (Loxostege sticticalis L.) (in Hungarian). Kertgazdaság. 1991; 4 :65-70 - 34.
Járfás J. Results of light trapping of harmful tortricid moths (in Hungarian). Kertészeti Egyetem Közleményei. 1977; 41 :123-126 - 35.
Jarfas J. The effectivity of different light trapping methods in studying the flight activity of European Corn Borer (in Hungarian). Növényvédelem. 1978;494–498 - 36.
Wallner WE, Humble LM, Levin RE, Baranchikov YN, Cardé RT. Response of adult lymantriid moths to illumination devices in the Russian Far East. The Journal of Economic Entomology. 1995; 88 (2):337-342 - 37.
Fayle TM, Sharp RE, MEN M. The effect of moth trap type on catch size and composition in British Lepidoptera. The British Journal of Entomology and Natural History. 2007; 20 :221-232 - 38.
Barghini, A. Influência da Illuminãçao Artificial sobre a Vida Silvestre: técnicas para minimizar os impactos, com especial enfoque sobre os insectos. Universidade de São Paolo, Instituto de Biosciências, Programa de Pós-Graduãçao em Ecologia. 2008. p. 229 - 39.
Zollikofer CPE, Wehner R, Fukushi T. Optical scaling in conspecific Cataglyphis ants. The Journal of Experimental Biology. 1995;198 :1637-1646 - 40.
Jander U, Jander R. Allometry and resolution of bee eyes (Apoidea). Arthropod Structure & Development. 2002; 30 (3):179-193 - 41.
Spaethe J, Chittka L. Interindividual variation of eye optics and single object resolution in bumblebees. The Journal of Experimental Biology. 2003; 206 :3447-3453 - 42.
Kapustjanskij A, Streinzer M, Paulus HF, Spaethe J. Bigger is better: implications of body size for flight ability under different light conditions and the evolution of alloethism in bumblebees. Functional Ecology. 2007; 21 :1130-1136 - 43.
Rutowski RL., Gislén L., Warrant E.J. Visual acuity and sensitivity increase allometrically with body size in butterflies. Arthropod Structure & Development 2009; 38 :91-100 - 44.
Moser JC, Reeve JD, Bento JMS, Della Lucia TMC, Cameron RS, Heck NM. Eye size and behaviour of day- and night-flying leaf cutting and ablates. Journal of Zoology (London). 2004; 264 :69-75 - 45.
Yack JE, Johnson SE, Brown SG, Warrant EJ. The eyes of Macrosoma sp. (Lepidoptera: Hedyloidea): A nocturnal butterfly with superposition optics. Arthropod Structure & Development. 2007; 36 :11-22 - 46.
Kino T, Oshima S. Allergy to insects in Japan I. The reaginic sensitivity to moth and butterfly in patients with bronchial asthma. Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology. 1978; 61 (1):10-16 - 47.
Barghini A, Medeiros BAS. Artificial Lighting as a vector attractant and cause of disease diffusion. Environmental Health Perspectives. 2010; 118 :1503-1506 - 48.
van Langevelde F, Ettema JA, Donners M, MF WDV, Groenendijk D. Effect of spectral composition of artificial light on the attraction of moths. Biological Conservation. 2011; 144 (9):2274-2281. DOI: 10.1016/j.biocon.2011.06.004 - 49.
Hajtman B. Introduction to mathematical statistics for psychologists (in Hungarian). Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest. 1968. p. 183 - 50.
Odor P, Iglói L. An introduction to the sport's biometry (in Hungarian). ÁISH Tudományos Tanácsának Kiadása. Budapest. 1987. p. 267 - 51.
Manczel J. Statistical methods in agriculture. Mezőgazdasági Kiadó. Budapest. 1983. p. 496 - 52.
Kollings D. Ecological effects of artificial light sources on nocturnally active insects, in particular on butterflies (Lepidoptera). Faunistisch-Oekologische Mitteilungen Supplement. 2000; 28 :1-136 - 53.
Frank KD. Impact of outdoor lighting on moths. An assessment. Journal of the Lepidopterists’ Society. 1988; 42 (2):63-93 - 54.
Eisenbeis G, Hassel F. Attraction of nocturnal insects to street lights - a study of municipal lighting systems in a rural area of Rheinhessen (Germany). Natur und Landschaft. 2000; 75 (4):145-156