Language selection

Search

Release and recapture of three insect species test the efficacy of trap method and air flow in insect containment

De Clerck-Floate, R.A., Saunders, P., Floate, K.D. (2012). Release and recapture of three insect species test the efficacy of trap method and air flow in insect containment, 144(4), 609-616. http://dx.doi.org/10.4039/tce.2012.45

Abstract

Regulations for the containment of arthropods stipulate that containment facilities be specially designed and operated to prevent arthropod escapes. A key area for security is the entrance-exit anteroom on the facility's periphery, which is to have an insect trap for capturing incident arthropods, and an inward directional flow of air. To test the efficacy of these features, a release-recapture study was conducted in the anteroom of an operational containment facility using different trap methods (ceiling-mounted ultraviolet [UV] or incandescent light traps, floor-situated pan water trap), and three insect species (dung beetle, Chilothorax distinctus (Müller) (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae)-formerly known as Aphodius distinctus; house fly, Musca domestica Linnaeus (Diptera: Muscidae); parasitic wasp, Urolepis rufipes (Ashmead) (Hymenoptera: Pteromalidae)). The optimum method for capturing insects within the anteroom varied with species and their behaviours; UV light trap + water trap for C. distinctus (mean catch: 82.3% ± 2.7% of recovered beetles), water trap + incandescent light trap for M. domestica (mean catch: 78.3% ± 4.1%), and UV light trap for U. rufipes (mean catch: 13.0% ± 8.5%; but no trap worked particularly well). Inward flow of air was deemed most effective for containing the small and active U. rufipes, with 23% of detected escapees moving deeper into quarantine. Awareness of insect behaviour in artificial environments is advised for determining whether additional security protocols are required. © 2012 Entomological Society of Canada.

Report a problem on this page
Please select all that apply:
Date modified: