Blower-Vac: a new suction apparatus for sampling rice arthropods G. S. Arida and K. L. Heong, IRRI Entomologists commonly use the D-vac suction sampler, available in different models, for quantitative studies of insects in rice and other habitats. This equipment however, is costly (Model 24 [backpack] is US$1098 and Model 122 [hand carried] is $675) and not very portable for use in irrigated rice fields (Model 24 weighs 17.7 kg and Model 122, 6.3 kg). FARMCOP, which uses a modified car vacuum cleaner and depends on a car battery for power, is also commonly used. It costs $310 and weighs 14 kg. Hand-held, gasoline-driven blower vacuum machines have become popular gardening equipment. We used one of these machines as a suction power source attached to the FARMCOP's trap device (see figure). This machine, (Blower-Vac, model 300 BV manufactured by Inertia Dynamics Corp., Chandler, AZ 85226 USA) has both blowing and sucking outlets. It provides good suction, is lightweight (6.3 kg), and is easy to operate with one hand because the throttle is conveniently placed in the handle. It costs $158. We sampled direct seeded rice fields planted to IR72 at 40 days after seeding (DAS). For enclosure, a plastic bucket (45 cm diameter, 54 cm high) with the bottom removed and top fitted with a fiberglass net sleeve (60 cm long) was used. All arthropods within the enclosure were sucked up with the suction apparatus, placed in vials with 70% alcohol, and counted in the laboratory. We randomly took 20 samples per suction device and sorted them into orders (see table). Total arthropods caught by the FARMCOP and Blower- Vac did not differ significantly. Both devices were more efficient than the two D-vac models. The Blower-Vac caught more Hemipterans while the FARMCOP caught more Dipterans, although the difference was not significant. The Blower-Vac sampler uses the same arthropod trapping and sucking device as the FARMCOP. The suction power from the car vacuum cleaner in the FARMCOP, however, changes as the battery weakens. Several batteries and a charger were necessary during field sampling to ensure adequate suction power. The Blower-Vac is more portable, provides a more consistent suction source, and costs less than the other devices.

jameslitsinger.files.wordpress.com · Web viewThe suction power from the car vacuum cleaner in the FARMCOP, however, changes as the battery weakens. Several batteries and a charger

Download DOCX Report

Upload
ngothuan
View
214
Download
0

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Page 1: jameslitsinger.files.wordpress.com · Web viewThe suction power from the car vacuum cleaner in the FARMCOP, however, changes as the battery weakens. Several batteries and a charger

Blower-Vac: a new suction apparatus for sampling rice arthropods

G. S. Arida and K. L. Heong, IRRI

Entomologists commonly use the D-vac suction sampler, available in different models, for quantitative studies of insects in rice and other habitats. This equipment however, is costly (Model 24 [backpack] is US$1098 and Model 122 [hand carried] is $675) and not very portable for use in irrigated rice fields (Model 24 weighs 17.7 kg and Model 122, 6.3 kg). FARMCOP, which uses a modified car vacuum cleaner and depends on a car battery for power, is also commonly used. It costs $310 and weighs 14 kg.

Hand-held, gasoline-driven blower vacuum machines have become popular gardening equipment. We used one of these machines as a suction power source attached to the FARMCOP's trap device (see figure). This machine, (Blower-Vac, model 300 BV manufactured by Inertia Dynamics Corp., Chandler, AZ 85226 USA) has both blowing and sucking outlets. It provides good suction, is lightweight (6.3 kg), and is easy to operate with one hand because the throttle is conveniently placed in the handle. It costs $158.

We sampled direct seeded rice fields planted to IR72 at 40 days after seeding (DAS). For enclosure, a plastic bucket (45 cm diameter, 54 cm high) with the bottom removed and top fitted with a fiberglass net sleeve (60 cm long) was used. All arthropods within the enclosure were sucked up with the suction apparatus, placed in vials with 70% alcohol, and counted in the laboratory.

We randomly took 20 samples per suction device and sorted them into orders (see table). Total arthropods caught by the FARMCOP and Blower-Vac did not differ significantly. Both devices were more efficient than the two D-vac models. The Blower-Vac caught more Hemipterans while the FARMCOP caught more Dipterans, although the difference was not significant.

The Blower-Vac sampler uses the same arthropod trapping and sucking device as the FARMCOP. The suction power from the car vacuum cleaner in the FARMCOP, however, changes as the battery weakens. Several batteries and a charger were necessary during field sampling to ensure adequate suction power. The Blower-Vac is more portable, provides a more consistent suction source, and costs less than the other devices.

Comparison of arthropod catches from four suction devices.

D-vac D-vac Arthropods (backpack) (hand-carried) FARMCOP Blower-Vac

Hemiptera 59.6 (23.7) 25.7 (10.8) 96.4 (32.9) 124 (34.9)Hymenoptera 13.7 (6.3) 7.3 (2.5) 4.0 (1.6) 4.4 (2.4)Coleoptera 7.5 (3.1) 2.6 (2.5) 8.7 (3.0) 8.3 (3.0)Diptera 28.8 (6.6) 23.8 (9.6) 57.3 (41.9) 32.4(23.0)Orthoptera 4.5 (4.4) 0.7 (0.4) 4.6 (2.2) 3.6 (3.3)Lepidoptera 0 0 0 0.1 (0.1)Odonata 0.4 (0.3) 0.2 (0.2) 0.2 (0.2) 0.4 (0.4)Araneae 11.8 (4.5) 4.9 (2.0) 14.1 (4.4) 12.4 (2.9)

Total 125.9 (40.5) 65.1 (19.8) 185.1 (56.5) 185.6 (45.7)a/ SE at 95% confidence limits in parentheses.

Mean a/