Soil Arthropod Sampling

https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2504(08)60299-8Get rights and content

Publisher Summary

This chapter summarizes the current methods used for sampling soil arthropod populations. Such methods are used in three main types of work: exploratory work that is not concerned with quantitative population estimates, but is aimed at finding what species occur in an area, “community” studies that are concerned with the relative abundance of a wide range of species and often over a wide range of habitats, and “trophic” studies that demand a knowledge of absolute abundance usually of relatively few species and in a single habitat. The planning of a complete sampling system requires careful choice and matching of experimental design, extraction technique and methods of examination and counting in the light of the above considerations. The chapter discusses the main types of collection and extraction processes employed in the study of soil arthropods, the factors that determine the choice of sampling systems three specific projects, and the special problems posed by the patchiness of distribution which is usual among soil animals and the application of ranking and other alternatives to a complete census in community studies that do not necessitate the great labor of complete counts.

References (77)

  • F.E.S. Alexander et al.
  • F.J. Anscombe

    Biometrika

    (1950)
  • S.I. Auerbach et al.

    Acarologia

    (1960)
  • E.W. Baker et al.

    An Introduction to Acarology

    (1952)
  • J. Balogh

    Zool. Anz.

    (1938)
  • J. Balogh
  • W. Belfield

    J. Anim. Ecol.

    (1956)
  • A. Berlese

    Redia

    (1905)
  • A. Berlese

    Redia

    (1921)
  • C.I. Bliss et al.

    Biometrics

    (1953)
  • M. Boness

    Z. Morph. Ökol. Tiere

    (1953)
  • C.K. Capstick

    J. Anim. Ecol.

    (1959)
  • T.S. Coile

    Soil Sci.

    (1936)
  • L.C. Cole

    Ecology

    (1949)
  • D.P. Clark

    The ecology of the soil fauna of a rain forest with special reference to the amphipod, Talitrus sylvaticus Haswell

    (1954)
  • J.B. Cragg

    J. Ecol.

    (1961)
  • M.J. Davies

    The ecology of small predatory beetles, with special reference to their competitive relations

    (1955)
  • V.G. Dethier
  • B.S. Dhillon et al.

    Pedobiologia

    (1962)
  • C.A. Edwards

    Ent. exp. et appl.

    (1958)
  • G.O. Evans

    Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. Ser.

    (1953)
  • G.O. Evans
  • E.W. Fager

    Ecology

    (1957)
  • D.J. Finney

    Biomet. Bull.

    (1946)
  • J. Ford

    J. Anim. Ecol.

    (1937)
  • K.H. Forsslund

    Medd. Skogsforsk. Inst. Stockh.

    (1948)
  • H. Gisin

    Rev. suisse Zool.

    (1943)
  • H. Gisin
  • N. Haarløv

    J. Anim. Ecol.

    (1947)
  • N. Haarløv et al.

    Oikos

    (1953)
  • N.G. Hairston

    Ecology

    (1959)
  • R. Hartenstein

    Ecology

    (1961)
  • M.J.R. Healy
  • B. Heydemann
  • J. Hobart

    Ent. mon. Mag.

    (1956)
  • M.G. Kendall
  • D.K. McEKevan

    Soil Zoology. Proceedings of the University of Nottingham Second Easter School in Agricultural Science

    (1955)
  • P. Kontkanen

    Vie et Milieu

    (1950)
  • Cited by (53)

    • In-situ <sup>13</sup>CO<inf>2</inf> labeling to trace carbon fluxes in plant-soil-microorganism systems: Review and methodological guideline

      2021, Rhizosphere
      Citation Excerpt :

      Macrofauna can be manually collected from soil samples (Irmler, 2000). The Tullgren method involves heat extraction in a Macfadyen apparatus and is often used to separate and extract microfauna and mesofauna (MacFadyen, 1962; Irmler, 2000; Pollierer et al., 2012). The soil fauna are washed with distilled water and stored at 8 °C for 48 h so that the gut is evacuated because the intestinal contents may confound the isotope analysis (Haines and Montague, 1979; Albers et al., 2006).

    • A DNA metabarcoding approach to characterize soil arthropod communities

      2018, Soil Biology and Biochemistry
      Citation Excerpt :

      The morphological identification of soil arthropods is time consuming (Bienert et al., 2012; Querner and Bruckner, 2010) and usually requires significant taxonomic expertise as the diversity is often difficult to characterize due to morphological ambiguity and cryptic diversity (e.g. André et al., 2001; Smith et al., 2008; Yu et al., 2012). Further, there are known biases in the methods commonly used for extraction of arthropod communities (André et al., 2002; Edwards, 1991) and extraction efficiency varies for different taxa across soil types and under different extraction conditions (André et al., 2002; Macfadyen, 1962). These challenges can constrain efforts to characterize soil arthropod communities, particularly when seeking to analyze a larger number of soils in a relatively short period of time or when taxonomic expertise is lacking (Querner and Bruckner, 2010).

    • Climatic and litter fall effects on collembolan and oribatid mite species and communities in a beech wood based on a 7 years investigation

      2006, European Journal of Soil Biology
      Citation Excerpt :

      Oppioidea oribatids were not determined to the species level. The Ol-layer and the Of-layers were collected in a 0.1 m2 frame and subsequently extracted in a Macfadyen-apparatus [21]. The Ah-layer was sampled up to 4 cm depth taking a 0.03 m2 soil core; soil fauna was subsequently extracted in a Macfadyen-aparatus, as well.

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text