United Sides 

DeparCment of 

Agriculture 

Forest Service 

A Trap for Capturing Arthropods 

ing Up Tree Bo 

James L. Hanula and Kirsten C.P. New 

Southern 

Research Station 

Research Note 

SRS-3 

August 1996 

A simple trap is described that captures ahopods as they crawl up tree boles. 

Comtmcted &om metal hnnels, plastic sandwich containers, and spimen 

cups, the traps can be assen~bled by one person at a rate of 5 to 6 per hour and 

installed in 2 to 3 nrinutes. Spimen colle~tion required 15 to 20 seconds per 

trap. In 1383, ha traps were phced on each tree. In 1994, a single trap per 

tree with a drift fence consisting of an alurninum band vvrappd around the 

tree was used. Trap captures ltorn four 1-week samples collect& in April, 

July, October, and January of each year were compared. Traps without drift 

opods in 63 different genera and an average of 16.3 

artbrclpods per trap. Those with &rift fences capturd 122 different genera and 

26.8 arthro@s per trap. The traps captured arthropods from 18 orders. They 

were particulasly effective for capturing spiders (Araneae), ants 

(Hymenoptera: Fodcidae), and beetles (Coleoptera). In addition, the traps 

worked well in capturing the pine reproduction weevils, Hylobius pales 

(Herbst) and Pachylobius picivorus (Cemar). The traps offer a simple, 

effective alternative for the study of arlhropods that crawl up the bark of trees. 

They are easy to construct and install, allow quick sample recovery, and can 

be left unagended for several weeks without sample deterioration. 

Keywords: eopod trap, bark surface, crawl trap, Hylobius paks, 

Pachylobius picivorus. 

little else. However, Moeed and Mead (1983) noted that tree 

mnks provide an important pathway for ground-dwelling and 

flightless arthropods to move to the canopy. To study 

arthropod use of tree boles in southern pine ecosystems, we 

needed a reusable trap that would be easy to install and 

maintain over an extended period. 

Others have designed traps to capture arthropods crawling up 

the boles of trees (Fu&e 197 1, Klepzig and others 199 1, 

Mariani and Manuwal1990, Moeed and Mead 1983). Most 

are similar in construction and rely on an upward directed wire 

screen skirt or drift fence wrapped around the bole and formed 

into a funnel at the top. The screen skirt or drift fence directs 

arthropods into a collection container. Funke's (1 97 1) traps 

differ, consisting of three to four interconnected cloth funnels. 

Although these traps are effective, we noted several 

drawbacks to using them on a large scale. These limitations 

include high ini~al construction andlor installation time and 

slow sample recovery from the collection container. 

Introduction 

The tree bole or trunk is a major structural feature in forested 

liandscapes that influences aplhropod behavior and habits. 

Jackson (1 979) characterized the bask as a '"bedroom 

opods lay eggs or overwinter but do 

Jams L. Nanula is a Research Entomologist and Kirsten C.P. New is a 

Biological Science Tec~eian, USDA Forest Service, Southern Research 

Station, Forestry Sciences Laborstow, 320 Green Stret, .&&ens, GA 30502- 

2044. 

The use of trade or firm names in this publication is for reacier infomation 

and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Department of A@culture of any 

product or service. 

We designed and tested a trunk or crawl trap that is easy to 

construct and install and requires only a few seconds for 

sample recovery and preparation for the next collection 

period. In addi~on, with an appropriate preservalive in the 

collection container, the traps can be leg unattended for 

several weeks without specimen deterioration. We report here 

the richness and abundance of arthropods captured in the traps 

alone and in conjunction with a drift fence. 

Matefials and &lethods 

Materials for trap construction include a 5.7-L tin Eunnel 

(McMaster-Can Co., Atlanta, GA), a 470-d capacity 

sandwich container ( Rubbemaid Co.), a f 20-d 
pollt"propy1ene speeimen cup with a screw cap, sand, N@co 

Spra Glu adhesive ( , IL), Ruon (Northern Prducts 

Co., Woonsoeket, H), flat black spray enmel p~nt* solder, 

wire, and screws. 

We modified the tin fume1 by cutting the outlet off to a length 

of 1.5 cm, resulting in an outlet diaekr of 2.5 cm. A 

triangular-shaped section, 16-cm wide along the lip of the 

funnel and tapering to a round tip (2-cm diameter) ending 3 

cm below the base of the spout, was cut out of the side of the 

funnel. The edges along the triangular cutout were bent to 

form a flat surface (5-m wide) to aid in sealing the funnel to 

the bark (fig. 1A). Four holes (2-m diameter) were drilled 

into the funnel near the edge of the triangular cutout, and 10- 

cm long pieces of wire (I-m diameter) were inserted into 

each hole (fig. 1 B). Both ends of the wires were formed into 

loops to prevent them from slipping out of the holes and to use 

in securing the funnels to the trees (fig. 2A). We sprayed the 

inside surface of the funnel with glue and sprinkled sand on 

the wet glue to provide a rough surface for the 

crawl on. We painted the entire funnel black to reduce the risk 

that the shiny tin surface would attract or repel arthropods. 

We modified the sandwich container by drilling one hole (3.5- 

cm diameter) in a corner (4.75 cm from the container center), 

and a second hole (2.9-cm diameter) in the opposite corner 

(3.25 cm fiom the center) (fig. 1B). A 2.9-cm diameter hole 

was drilled through the lid of the specimen cup. The cup lid 

was then attached to the sandwich container beneath the 2.9- 

cm diameter hole with two, short, pan head screws. The outlet 

of the funnel was inserted through the larger hole in the 

container, and two drops of solder were placed on the funnel 

outlet (inside the container) to keep the sandwich container 

fi-om slipping off. The inside of the sandwich container was 

coated with Ruon, a polytetrafluoroethylene suspension, to 

create a slippery surface that arthropods could not crawl up. 

The bark where the traps were to be attached was scraped 

smooth without injuring the tree, and the traps were positioned 

so the edge of the triangular cutout in the funnel was against 

the bark surface (figs. 2A and 2B). Roofing nails (3-cm long) 

hamered into the bark through the wire loops held the traps 

in place. The fumemark interface was sealed with clear 100- 

percent silicone caulk to prevent arthropod escape. The 

specimen cups, filled with a concentrated NaCl solution and 

1 -percent fomaldehyde, were screwed onto the cup lid. 

Artfnropods crawled up the tree, through the funnel, and into 

the sandwich container where they eventually fell into the 

specimen cup, 

We conducted two trials with the traps on the Savannah River 

Site near Aiken, SC. In 1993, the traps were attached to the 

boles of 50- to 60-~ar-old longleaf pines, Pinus palustris L. 

Three traps were spaced equidistant around the circumference 

of the tree bole approxirnakly 1.5 m above the ground (fig. 

2B). Traps were placed on 1 tree in each of 8 widely scattered 

longleaf pine sbrtds resulting in a tohl of 24 traps. The traps 

were check& weeuy for 1 yea, and all 

were identified to genus or the lowest bxonomic level 

possible. 

In 1994, eight stands of mature longleaf pine mre selected, 

and five trees within 0. 1 -ha plots in each stand were fitted with 

one trap each (40 traps). In addition to the trap, a barrier 

constmcted of 10-cm wide aluminum sheet metal coated with 

muon was added (fig. 2A). The barrier was wrapped arotlnd 

each tree just below the funnels so the upper edge of the 

brurier touched the bottom of the funnel. The bark beneath the 

barrier was scraped smooth to prevent arthropods from going 

under it. The barrier was held in place with two roofing nails, 

and the lower edge was sealed to the bark with silicone caulk 

to further reduce the likelihood of arZhropods going under it. 

The barrier partially encircled the tree and an 1 1- to 12-cm 

wide gap opened into the mouth of the funnel. Arthropods 

crawling up the tree followed the edge of the barrier to the gap 

and then continued up into the funnel. 

We operated the traps in the second trial for 1 year. However, 

we only identified all of the opods captured in four 1 - 

week samples collected in April, July, October, and January. 

Therefore, we selected the samples for those same weeks from 

the 1993 trial for comparison. In each trial, we combined the 

data on arthropods captured. However, to permit direct 

comparison of trap effectiveness between the two trials, we 

divided the numbers caught by the number of traps used in 

each experiment. 

Results and Discussion 

The traps were easy to construct. We estimate that one person 

could construct five to six traps per hour, and two people 

working together could install one trap with a drift fence in 2 

to 3 minutes. Ultraviolet (UV) light did deteriorate the plastic 

sandwich containers. Coating the conbiners with a UV 

protectant might reduce this problem. Sample collection 

involved removing the coIlection cup from the trap and 

screwing on a fiesh cup and only took a few seconds per trap. 

Occasionally, specimens such as large grasshoppers, preying 

mantids, or walking sticks became stuck in the sandwich 

container and failed to fall into the specimen cup. They were 

collected by removing the lid of the container. 

The traps with a drift fence captured a greater diversity of 

arthropods and more individuals per taxon than traps without 

the barrier. Funnel traps with a barrier captured 122 different 

taxa and an average of 26.8 arthropods per trap during the 4 
Figure 1-A simple trap for capturing arthropods that crawl up the bark of trees. (A) The trap consists of a modified metal funnel, sandwich storage container, 

and a plastic specimen cup. (B) The side of the funnel is cut out scr the fume1 can be fitted to the side of the tree. 

Figure 2-Two configurations of the crawl trap. (A) One using a single trap with a dri& fence consfructed &am aluminum sheet metal and sealed to the bark 

with silicone caulk and (B) a wand around the circunrfaence of the tree bole. 
weeks tested; those without b~ers captured only 63 

pds and an average of 16.3 

trap* 

Table 1 shows Lhe average number of specimens of each 

genus or bxon captured per trap, Irr almoskveery case, the 

traps with the bhers caught more thm those without 

bders. The traps were particufarly effective in capturing 

hunting spiders (Araneae), beetles (Goleoptera), and 

Hymenoptera, especially ants (Formicidae). For som taxa, 

the traps without b&ers were as effective as those with 

barriers (for exmple, Crema8ugast:er spp,). hang the 

Coleoptera, the traps were effective for capturing the pine 

reproduction weevils, Hylobius pales (Herbst) and 

Pachylobius pieivorus (Gem) and Tenebrionidae in the 

genus Helops. 

Although the two trials were conducted in different years, 

the large increase in arthropod taxa and the general increase 

in the nunibers of individuals captured in 1994 were 

probably not the result of an overall increase in arthropod 

abundance that year. hstead, using a drift fence with the 

traps apparently increases the trap captures. In addition, 

this method reduces the amount of labor involved to 

construct enough traps for a given study 

Moeed and Mead (1983) conducted an extensive study of 

invertebrates on tree tnrnks in New fZlealmd. They operated 

20 traps on 5 tree species confinuously for 1% years and 

captured approximately 1 38 &Eerent species. One-half of 

their traps captured atkqods crawling down the tree. 

Although directly comparing the two studies is not possible 

because location, forest type, trapping intensity, and 

taxonomic intensity of the vzious orders are different, 

arthropod richness comparisons give some indication of a 

trap's abilities to capture various groups. We captured 122 

different genera with 40 traps operated during four 1-week 

periods. The types of arthropods captured were similar in 

the two studies. 

In our second trial, using traps with drift fences, we 

captured 29 Nylubius sp. and 102 Paehylobius sp. weevils 

during 4 weeks of trapping, In previous studies, baited 

crawl traps or basal trunk traps were used to sample 

reproduction weevils (Klepzig and others 199 1, M& 

1969, Raffa and Wall 1988). Mthough we were trying to 

avoid attraction of specific arthropods to our traps, the 

relatively large nulnbers of reproduction weevils captured 

is inmesting and suggests that our funnel traps could easily 

be used in studies of these and other arboreal weevils, 

traps are eEwtive in capmfing a varieQ of 

. They are simple to cons6mct and inshll, sample 

collection is easy, and the trqs are easily removed and 

reused. mey can also be adapted for use on small trees (5- 

to 10-cm d.b.h.) by cut~ng a smaller section from the side 

of the funnel. In addition, traps can be left wnamnded for 4 

weeks without dete~oration of the specimens, because the 

collection conkners prevent &!udon of the preservalive by 

rainfall, These hmel lraps are readily adaptable to a wide 

variety of situdons. 

Acknowledgments 

te for helpful suggestions in trap 

design and assistance in constnrcting the traps and 

Marianne McGloskey and Todd Kuntz for help in data 

collecting. 

Literature Cited 

Funke, W. 197 1. Food and energy turnover of leafeating insects and their 

iduence on primary production. In: Ellenberg, M., d. Ecological 

studies: inlegating expear'menlal ecology. New York: Springer Berlin 

Weidelberg. 8 1-93. 

Jackon, J,A. 1979. Tree surlFaces as foraging substrates for inse~tivorous 

birds. In: Dickson, J.G.; Conner, R.N.; Reef;, R.R.; Jackson, J.A., eds. 

The role of insectivorous birds in forest msystems. New York: 

Academic Press: 69-93. 

Klepzig, K.D.; Raffa, K.F.; Smarileg, E.B. 1991. Assmiation of an 

inmt-fungal complex with red pine decLine in Wisconsin. Forest 

Science. 38: 11 19-1 139. 

Maki, J.R. 1969. Aspect of the ecology and biology of the red pine root 

collar weevil, Hylobius rudicis Buchanan, in Michigan. East hnsing: 

Michigan State University. Ph.D. dissertation. 

Mariani, Jina M.; Manuwal, David A. 1990. Factors influencing brown 

creeper (Certhia americuna) abundance patterns in the southern 

Washington Cascade Range. In: Morrison, Michael L.; Ralph, C. John; 

Verner, Jared; Jehl, Joseph R. Jr., 4s. Avian foraging: theory, 

methodology, and applications. Studies in Avian Biology. 13: 53-57. 

Moeed, Abdul; Mead, M J. 1983. Invertebrate fauna of our tree species 

in Qrongorongo Valley, New Zealand, as revealed by trunk traps, New 

Zealand Journal of Ecology, 6: 39-53. 

Waffa, Kenneth F.; Hall, David J. 1988. Seasonal oecurrena of pine 

root collar weevil, Hytobius radicis (Coleoptera: Curculionidae), in red 

pine stands undergoing decline. Great Lakes Entomologist. 2 1 : 69-74. 
Table 1-Mean number of arthropods captured per trap in funnel traps 6th 

and dtkrout driift fences 

Mean number of arthropods per trap 

Order and Traps with drlff Traps without drift 

farpliily Genus fence (40 traps) fences (24 traps) 

Araneae 

Anyphaenidae 

Araneidae 

Clubionidae 

Corrnnidae 

Ctenizidae 

Gnaphosidae 

Mimetidae 

Oonopidae 

Oxyopidae 

Pbilodromidae 

Salticidae 

Segestriidae 

Theridiidae 

Thonaisidae 

Ghelonetbida 

Coleoptera 

Alleculidae 

Buprestldae 

Garabidae 

Anyphaena 

A raneus 

Castianeira 

Trachelas 

Phrurotimpus 

Myrmeciop h ilia 

Grzaphosa 

Nerpyllus 

Zelotes 

Unknown 

Ceraticelus 

Grammonota 

Walckenaeria 

Unhown 

Lycosa 

Pa rdasa 

Schizocosa 

Mimetus 

Gamasomorpha 

Unknown 

Philodromlas 

Evis 

Ha brocesturn 

Metacyrba 

Metaphidippus 

Phidippus 

Sitticus 

Thiodina 

A riadna 

Theridion 

Coriarachne 

Trnarus 

Xysticus 

Lobopodct 

Chalcophora 

Dromius 

Pterostichus 

Ecyrus 

Metachroma 

Cercopeics 

Chalcodemus 

Cossonus 

Curculio 
Table I-Mean number of iltrthropds caplured per trap in Eunnel traps vv-iillh 

and vo.irthout drB fertces (continued) 

Mem nuder of mhropods per trap 

Order and 

i~ 

Traps wi& dr;rft 

Genus fence (40 caps) 

Traps wiaout &ifi 

fences (24 traps) 

Endomychidae 

Leptodiridae 

Meloidae 

Me1 yridae 

Mordellidae 

Nitidulidae 

Scarabaeidae 

Scolytidae 

S taphylinidae 

Tenebrionidae 

Trogositidae 

Diplopoda 

Diptera 

Asilidae 

Aulacigastridae 

Gecidomgidae 

Geratopogonidae 

Gbironom;ldae 

lrfylobius 

Pachylobius 

Pandeleteius 

Pissodes 

Anzpedus 

Gll)phonyYx 

Heterodeves 

Megapenthes 

Melanotus 

Stenotarsus 

Ptomaphag us 

Zbndtis 

Attalus 

Hypcrrhagus 

Glipodes 

Carpophilus 

Diplotaxis 

Phyllophaga 

Ips 

Unknown 

Helops 

Strongy lium 

Unknown 

Uhown 

Phitonicus 

Aulacigastev 

Uhown 

Porricondyla 

Unknown 

Unknown 

Micropsectra 

O~"5hapodirmyia 

Ubown 

Muscina 

Exechiopsis 

6aII;felia 

Mgasetia 

Velocia 

Ubown 

Unknown 

Unknown 

Largus 

Phytoco ris 

Brochymena 

Euthyrhynchus 
Table 1-Mean number of arthropds captured per trap in funme1 traps with 

and vvithoul. dra fences (continued) 

Mean nuder of mhopods per trap 

Order and 

family 

Traps with drift Traps without drift 

Genus fence (40 traps) fences (24 traps) 

Tingidae 

Wornoptera 

Achilidae 

Aphididae 

Cicadellidae 

Cixiidae 

Flatidae 

Issidae 

W ymenop tera 

Bethylidae 

Chalcididae 

Encyrtidae 

Evaniidae 

Formicidae 

Mutillidae 

Pamp hi liidae 

Pompilidae 

Scelionidae 

Sphecidae 

Vespidae 

Lepidoptera 

Gelechiidae 

Ceometridae 

Noctuidae 

Melanotestes 

Pselliopus 

Uhown 

Epiptera 

Unknown 

Unknown 

Unknown 

Oliarus 

Ca tonia 

Tizionia 

Epy ris 

Spilochalcis 

Unknown 

Hyptia 

Aphaenogaster 

Camponatus 

Crematogaster 

Forelius 

Formica 

Hypopunera 

Iridumy mex 

Leptothorax 

Myrmecina 

Paratrechina 

Pheidole 

Prenolepis 

Solenopsis 

Tetramorium 

Dasymutilla 

Photornorphus 

Pseudometizoca 

Sphaerophthalma 

Acantholyda 

Ag enielta 

AlZaporus 

Auplopus 

Psorthaspis 

Cryon 

Sphex 

Euodynerus 

Unknown 

Unknown 

Unknown 
Table I-hgean number of arthropd captured per trap in funnel traps vk.iidh 

and without dra fenew (continued) 

Mean nuder of arlhopods per &ap 

Order and Traps with drifi Traps without: drift 

farnily Genus fence (40 traps) fences (24 tfaps) 

Tineidae 

Neuroptera 

Cwsopidae 

Orthoptera 

Acrididae 

Blattidae 

Gry.llacrididae 

Cryllidae 

Tettigoniidae 

Pkalangida 

Plecoptera 

LRuctridae 

Psocoptera 

kpidopsocidae 

Scolopendromrpha 

Cryp topidae 

Thysanura 

hpisrnatidae 

Unknown 

iMelanoplus 

Parcobtatta 

Hippoclarnia 

Uhown 

Cyclop tilum 

Unknown 

Unknotrin 

Leuctra 

The United States Departnlenl of Agriculhtre (USDA) prohibits discrimination in its 

programs on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, religion, age, disability, 

political beliefs, and marital or IBmilial status. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all 

programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for 

nication of program information (braille, Iarge print, audiotape, etc.) should 

contact the USDA Office of Comunications at (202) 720-588 1. To file a 

complaint, write the Secretary of Agriculture, U.S. Department of Agriculme, 

Washington, DC 20250, or call (202) 720-7327. USDA is an qud employment 

opportunity employer. 

Southern Research Station, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

P.0. Box 2680, Asheville, NC 28802