Comparing Methods of Evaluating the Spread of Argentine Ants in Natural Habitats: Pitfall Traps vs. Baiting
Two methods of trapping Argentine ants in natural habitats are compared. Both methods are used on the boundaries of an invaded area with the goal of assessing the spread of the invasion front. Pitfall surveys take longer to obtain results than bait surveys, but bait surveys are only a “snapshot” of...
| Autores: | , , |
|---|---|
| Tipo de recurso: | artículo |
| Fecha de publicación: | 2009 |
| País: | España |
| Institución: | Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas (CSIC) |
| Repositorio: | DIGITAL.CSIC. Repositorio Institucional del CSIC |
| OAI Identifier: | oai:digital.csic.es:10261/45698 |
| Acceso en línea: | http://hdl.handle.net/10261/45698 |
| Access Level: | acceso abierto |
| Palabra clave: | Argentine ant Bait Linepithema humile methods of survey pitfall colonial spread |
| Sumario: | Two methods of trapping Argentine ants in natural habitats are compared. Both methods are used on the boundaries of an invaded area with the goal of assessing the spread of the invasion front. Pitfall surveys take longer to obtain results than bait surveys, but bait surveys are only a “snapshot” of the moment, with less chance of detecting Argentine ant workers. Significant differences are found between the methods in terms of the number of traps occupied by Argentine ants, native ants or a combination of both. Differences in the richness of native ant species are found as well, showing that pitfall surveys are necessary to assess such richness. Despite this, no differences in the assessment of spread are found between the methods. Bait surveys are an easier and faster method to assess the spread of Argentine ants, spread being one of the most important characteristics of biological invasions. |
|---|