MOTH MONIIORING SCHEME A handbook for field work and data reporting Environment Data Centre 1/1/1/ National Boord of Waters and the Environment Nordic Council of Ministers /////// Helsinki 1 994 Environmental Report 8 MOTH MONITORING SCHEME A handbook for field work and data reporting Environment Data Centre National Board of Waters and the Environment Helsinki 1994 Published by Environment Data Centre (EDC) National Board of Waters and the Environment P.O.BOX 250 FIN—001 01 Helsinki FINLAND Tel. +358—0—73 14 4211 Fax. +358—0—7314 4280 Internet address: [email protected] Edited by Guy Söderman, EDC Technical editng by Päivi Tahvanainen, EDC This handbook has been circulated for comments to the members of the project group for moth monitoring in the Nordic countries under the auspices of the Monitoring and Data Group of the Nordic Council of Ministers. Cover photo © Tarla Söderman Checking of installation of light trap at Vilsandi National Park in Estonia. Printed by Painotalo MIKTOR Ky, Helsinki 1 994 ISBN 951—47—9982—8 ISSN 0788—3765 CONTENTS .4 INTRODUCTION 5 PART 1: OBJECTIVES 7 1 Short term objectives 7 2 Medium-long term objectives 8 3 Additional objectives 8 4 Specific goals 9 5 Network design 9 5.1 Geographical coverage 9 5.2 Biotopes coverage 10 PART II: METRODOLOGY 11 1 Technical equipments and use 11 1.1 Structure of Iight traps 11 1.2 Field installation 13 1.3 Structure ofbait trap 14 1.4 Documentation of sites 15 1.5 Timing the light traps 15 1.6 Sampling procedures 15 2 Sample handling 16 2.1 Prestoring 16 2.2 Posting 16 2.3 Poststoring 17 2.4 Identification 17 2.5 Separation for dry storing 17 PART III: DATA HANDLING AND REPORTING 18 1 NOCTURNA Data Entry System 18 1.1 Installation 18 1.2 Starting the application 19 1.3 Database structure 19 3 1.4 Working with NOCTURNA application 19 1.5 Data retrieval and output files 25 1.6 Deleting data and reorganisation of database 27 2 NOCTURNA Central Database 28 3 Reporting procedures 28 APPENDICES 29 1 Database Structure 30 2 Habitat list 32 3 Recommended forms to be distinguished 36 4 Recommended sex-ratio to he distinguished 38 5 Species list 39 6 Trap card 58 7 Dataforms 59 4 INTRODUCTION etc as “indicator groups” for biodiversity mon BACKGROUND itoring — but several of these “indicator groups” have their flaws. Ali countries which have signed the Article 7 of the Convention of Biodiversity of the Agenda 21 are responsihle for: WHY THEN MOTHS? 1. identifying components of biodiversity of The moths inciude a large group of the insect importance for its preservation and sustain order Lepidoptera, the species of which feed as abie use; herbivores in many niches of the ecosystem; 2. monitoring these components ofbiodiversi ftom roots to buds of tree tops, on a variety of ty and pay special attention to those which plants like iichens, mosses, ferns, vascuiarpiants require fast response for conservation and and falien ieaves, and they compose a large part those who offer the greatest potential for of the prey of insectivorous predators like bats sustainable use; and birds, some of which are becoming highiy endangered in Europe. 3. identifying processes and categories of ac Furthermore, uniike migrating birds and tivities which have or will possibly bear mammais, moths are quite locai in their appear negative effects on preservance ofbiodiver ance (with the exception of some weiI-known sity and to monitor these; long-range transboundary species) and the pop 4. maintaining and organising with an appro ulations reflect rather weli the conditions of the priate mechanism, data refening to above habitats in which the moths are caught. mentioned identification and monitoring ac Moths have one to two generations per year, tivities. which make them more susceptible to changes in their environment than piants of which the The signing of the Convention means that majority are perennial and siow indicators of some practicai ways to monitor the biodiversity change. Reactions to changes in the environ and its man-induced negative effects must he ment have been documented for moths in sever deveioped. For northwestem Europe no specif ai cases, the concept of meianism is perhaps the ic biodiversity monitoring schemes have yet best known of these. been developed. Several proposais exist for One of the favourahle aspects of moth mon using aiready existing schemes, originaily de itoring is however its cost-effectiveness. Mon signed for otherpurposes, like monitoring stocks itoring can be automated with traps which are of game, fish, birds, coniferous tree stands, unexpensive to construct or buy and install. An inventories of wetlands and culturai landscapes average investment ofca 300—800 ECU/instal 5 lation has been calculated. The price will de by amateur or professional private collectors of pend upon the choice of the trap model. The Lepidopterological Societies. The aim of the sampling costs can effectively he reduced, if the private collector is to catch “good” or rare moth sampling can he coincided with other species for his/her collection, which often means types of sampling ofthe environment (an annual identifying and picking only a few specimens cost of ca 180 ECU/trap/year has been estimat per catch and leaving the rest. To this is of ed) and, furthermore, by enrolling private col course directly implicated the fact, of changing Iectors who will determine the collected mate sites and biotopes frequently. The aim of the rial for the compensation of receiving speci monitor is to catch “common” species and count mens to his/her collection, apart ftom a nominal ing every determined specimen and to induige fee for the extra work. As the catch of each trap the tiresome fact of a stahle site over many might per year comprise some 200—3 00 species years. and 1,000—8,000 specimens, the annual incre Having this in mmd, it is often evident that ment ofthe data collection from the site network organising moth monitoring is not in the keenest might be high; e.g. in Finland more than 75,000 interest of Lepidopterological Societies, but weekly records were gained in 1993 for ca 100 more in the interest of environmental or associ traps. Moth monitoring thus facilitates ample ated authorities. To he successful, a good co amounts of data for different types of diversity operation between private collectors and the calculations which can be repeated year after authorities must be estabiished. A following year. ldnd of arrangement is one way of assuring a worldng organisation. RE$TRICTION$ 1. Each tor several) pair(s) oftraps are installed by a regional or central authority, which Monitoring moths with the use of light-traps, assigns one or more sampier to maintain the which is described in this manual, will bear field traps and to weekiy collect the catch. some restrictions on the data collection which The authority should take the responsibility traps, shouid he known in advance. Moth monitoring for site maintenance (spare-parts for is focussed on the following Lepidoptera groups: prestoring etc.). Hepaloidea, Cossoidea, Drepanoidea, Ge 2. The material of each (or several) pair(s) of ometroidea, Bombycoidea, Sphingoidea and traps are determined by an expert, which Noctuoidea; viz. s.c “macrolepidoptera”. It is may or may not he part of the organisation. furthermore restricted to those species which In order to motivate private collectors, an are nocturnally active (some moths oniy fly in annual circulation of identification respon sunshine) and which are attracted to iight. Sev sibility may he established (material from eral species are not very abundant in light traps, sites of different geographical parts of the but are more abundantly attracted to baits. There Country). fore light trap catches do not fully reflect popu 3. The regional or central authority ColleCts the lation density of ali species (which can he cor data from its area and may perform regional rected if bait trap sampling is performed as a anaiyses of the data for local and regional complementing monitoring technique). purposes. Automated light traps wili attract other moths, 4. A national coordination unit colleCts core s.c. “microlepidoptera”, as well. Their determi data from ali regional units and analyses the nation is however more tedious, the quality of data on the national level. Information on the the material is poorer, and many species and national results must he returned baCk to the populations are very local. Therefore, atpresent, whoie organisation to ensure that eaCh ones they are not regarded very useful for indications work has heen appreCiated. The national of environmental change. Coordination unit should assist the authori ties through its expertise. ORGANISATIONAL A$PECTS 5. The national coordination units of different countries can establish an international net Moth coliecting and moth monitoring are two work ofCo-operation dividing the work with, different things, aithough the applied techniques or authorizing one of the coordination units are very simiiar. Moth collecting has in many to report on, or exChange, internationally countries been carried out for several decades signifiCant results to the national networks. 6 PARI 1: Objectives Moth monitoring is a Iong-term monitoring raiy mass occurrences and are classified as scheme which aims at collecting information on injurious to forestry or agriculture. In particular changes in moth populations and their habitats in central and southem Europe certain local and over a long time period. The monitoring scheme regional mass occurrences of moth species are should be designed for mnning more than 10 more significant in defoliation trees than long years, preferably longer. range transhoundary airpollution. This instabil There are many natural causes for fluctua ity in the habitat of the species is usually self tion in moth populations, a fact known as a correcting within a few years as a resuit of resuit of intensive moth collecting and research natural biological control, but often the instabil in northern Europe for almost a century.