INSECTA A Journal of World Insect Systematics MUNDI 0261 Comparison of three collection techniques for capture of Coleoptera, with an emphasis on saproxylic species, in Great Smoky Mountains National Park, USA Michael L. Ferro Louisiana State Arthropod Museum, Department of Entomology Louisiana State University Agricultural Center 402 Life Sciences Building Baton Rouge, LA, 70803, U.S.A. [email protected] Matthew L. Gimmel Division of Entomology Department of Ecology & Evolutionary Biology University of Kansas 1501 Crestline Drive, Suite 140 Lawrence, KS, 66045, U.S.A. [email protected] Kyle E. Harms Department of Biological Sciences Louisiana State University 202 Life Sciences Building Baton Rouge, LA, 70803, U.S.A. [email protected] Christopher E. Carlton Louisiana State Arthropod Museum, Department of Entomology Louisiana State University Agricultural Center 402 Life Sciences Building Baton Rouge, LA, 70803, U.S.A. [email protected] Date of Issue: November 30, 2012 CENTER FOR SYSTEMATIC ENTOMOLOGY, INC., Gainesville, FL M. L. Ferro, M. L. Gimmel, K. E. Harms and C. E. Carlton Comparison of three collection techniques for capture of Coleoptera, with an emphasis on saproxylic species, in Great Smoky Mountains National Park, USA Insecta Mundi 0261: 1–31 Published in 2012 by Center for Systematic Entomology, Inc. P. O. Box 141874 Gainesville, FL 32614-1874 USA http://www.centerforsystematicentomology.org/ Insecta Mundi is a journal primarily devoted to insect systematics, but articles can be published on any non-marine arthropod. Topics considered for publication include systematics, taxonomy, nomenclature, checklists, faunal works, and natural history. Insecta Mundi will not consider works in the applied sciences (i.e. medical entomology, pest control research, etc.), and no longer publishes book reviews or editorials. In- secta Mundi publishes original research or discoveries in an inexpensive and timely manner, distributing them free via open access on the internet on the date of publication. Insecta Mundi is referenced or abstracted by several sources including the Zoological Record, CAB Abstracts, etc. Insecta Mundi is published irregularly throughout the year, with completed manuscripts assigned an individual number. Manuscripts must be peer reviewed prior to submission, after which they are reviewed by the editorial board to ensure quality. One author of each submitted manuscript must be a current member of the Center for Systematic Entomology. Managing editor: Paul E. Skelley, e-mail: [email protected] Production editors: Michael C. Thomas, Brian Armitage, Ian Stocks Editorial board: J. H. Frank, M. J. Paulsen Subject editors: G.B. Edwards, J. Eger, A. Rasmussen, F. Shockley, G. Steck, Ian Stocks, A. Van Pelt, J. Zaspel Spanish editors: Julieta Brambila, Angélico Asenjo Printed copies (ISSN 0749-6737) deposited in libraries of: CSIRO, Canberra, ACT, Australia Museu de Zoologia, São Paulo, Brazil Agriculture and Agrifood Canada, Ottawa, ON, Canada The Natural History Museum, London, Great Britain Muzeum i Instytut Zoologiczny PAN, Warsaw, Poland National Taiwan University, Taipei, Taiwan California Academy of Sciences, San Francisco, CA, USA Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, Gainesville, FL, USA Field Museum of Natural History, Chicago, IL, USA National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC, USA Zoological Institute of Russian Academy of Sciences, Saint-Petersburg, Russia Electronic copies (On-Line ISSN 1942-1354, CDROM ISSN 1942-1362) in PDF format: Printed CD mailed to all members at end of year. Florida Center for Library Automation: http://purl.fcla.edu/fcla/insectamundi University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Digital Commons: http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/insectamundi/ Goethe-Universität, Frankfurt am Main: http://edocs.ub.uni-frankfurt.de/volltexte/2010/14363/ Author instructions available on the Insecta Mundi page at: http://www.centerforsystematicentomology.org/insectamundi/ Copyright held by the author(s). This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Com- mons, Attribution Non-Commercial License, which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and source are credited. http://creativecommons.org/ licenses/by-nc/3.0/ 0261: 1-31 2012 Comparison of three collection techniques for capture of Coleoptera, with an emphasis on saproxylic species, in Great Smoky Mountains National Park, USA Michael L. Ferro Louisiana State Arthropod Museum, Department of Entomology Louisiana State University Agricultural Center 402 Life Sciences Building Baton Rouge, LA, 70803, U.S.A. [email protected] Matthew L. Gimmel Division of Entomology Department of Ecology & Evolutionary Biology University of Kansas 1501 Crestline Drive, Suite 140 Lawrence, KS, 66045, U.S.A. [email protected] Kyle E. Harms Department of Biological Sciences Louisiana State University 202 Life Sciences Building Baton Rouge, LA, 70803, U.S.A. [email protected] Christopher E. Carlton Louisiana State Arthropod Museum, Department of Entomology Louisiana State University Agricultural Center 402 Life Sciences Building Baton Rouge, LA, 70803, U.S.A. [email protected] Abstract. Collection methods and/or habitats sampled influence how many and which species are captured during entomological surveys. Here we compare Coleoptera catches among three survey activities, each using a single collection method, at the same study sites in Great Smoky Mountains National Park, USA. Activities included: short-term flight intercept trapping (FITs); sifting/Berlese funneling of leaf litter and extremely decayed downed coarse woody debris; and using emergence chambers containing coarse woody debris of various decay classes. In total, 2472 adult beetle specimens, representing 217 lowest identifiable taxa within 164 genera and 42 families, were collected during the FIT survey. Each survey activity yielded more than 2000 specimens, and a combined total of 413 species was collected. A combination of all surveys yielded the highest species richness when normal- ized for number of specimens indicating that variation of habitat and/or collection method significantly increases species richness. Of single surveys the FIT survey had the highest absolute species richness (217) and the highest richness when normalized for number of specimens. Species overlap among survey activities was low (Sorensen’s quotient of similarity was 0.20–0.27), which showed that each was about equally dissimilar from all others. Overlap of catch between FITs and emergence chambers was too low to justify substitution of emergence surveys with the FIT survey protocol used when attempting to collect saproxylic Coleoptera. 1 2 • INSECTA MUNDI 0261, November 2012 FERRO ET AL. Introduction Concerning conservation of biodiversity, Aldo Leopold (1949) once admonished, “To keep every cog and wheel is the first precaution of intelligent tinkering.” However, from a practical standpoint, an inventory of the “cogs” and “wheels” (species) at a location, in a community, or within a habitat can be quite daunting, especially for entomologists. The large number and similarity of many species, difficulty of identification of immature forms, relatively short adult life spans, wide variety of micro-niches, and apparent scarcity of some species all contrive to make full inventories difficult. Habitat and collection method have a major influence over which species and how many specimens are collected. Hammond (1990), in his overview of early results from Project Wallace, where more than 1,000,000 tropical beetle specimens were collected using a wide variety of techniques, reported that 60% of species were collected from only one type of sample. Siitonen (1994) found that window traps collected more saproxylic beetle species associated with a wider variety of habitats than subcortical hand sampling in a northern Finland forest. Hammond (1997) found that window traps and emergence collections showed taxon bias when used to collect arthropods in a Canadian forest. Window traps col- lected 204 beetle species whereas emergence collected 161 and a 42% overlap of species between the two surveys was documented. Ranius and Jansson (2002) surveyed beetles in hollow oaks using pitfall traps, window traps, and hand searching through wood mold. They found significant differences in catch among the three collection methods despite limiting themselves to a very specific habitat that occupies a relatively small volume. Window traps collected a greater number and wider variety (based on micro- habitat group) of species, but under-sampled eight species compared to the other methods. Touroult et al. (2010) compared seven methods used to collect longhorn beetles (Cerambycidae) in French Guiana. They found that time was an important factor in determining the efficiency of methods; emergence and flight intercept trapping (FIT) was most efficient during long studies, whereas direct collection (beating, hand collection) was most efficient during very short studies. Species inventories and other comparative research are generally conducted by obtaining speci- mens (physical or observational) through “collecting” or “sampling” and here we differentiate the two activities. Collecting is a broad term for procuring specimens in any fashion or variety of fashions. It may be systematic, standardized, haphazard, eclectic, or serendipitous. Often specimens or groups of specimens obtained