@article{BoetzlRiesSchneideretal.2018,
  author    = {Boetzl, Fabian A. and Ries, Elena and Schneider, Gudrun and Krauss, Jochen},
  title     = {It's a matter of design - how pitfall trap design affects trap samples and possible predictions},
  series = {PeerJ},
  volume    = {6},
  journal   = {PeerJ},
  number    = {e5078},
  doi       = {10.7717/peerj.5078},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-176870},
  year      = {2018},
  abstract  = {Background: Pitfall traps are commonly used to assess ground dwelling arthropod communities. The effects of different pitfall trap designs on the trapping outcome are poorly investigated however they might affect conclusions drawn from pitfall trap data greatly. Methods: We tested four pitfall trap types which have been used in previous studies for their effectiveness: a simple type, a faster exchangeable type with an extended plastic rim plate and two types with guidance barriers (V- and X-shaped). About 20 traps were active for 10 weeks and emptied biweekly resulting in 100 trap samples. Results: Pitfall traps with guidance barriers were up to five times more effective than simple pitfall traps and trap samples resulted in more similar assemblage approximations. Pitfall traps with extended plastic rim plates did not only perform poorly but also resulted in distinct carabid assemblages with less individuals of small species and a larger variation. Discussion: Due to the obvious trait filtering and resulting altered assemblages, we suggest not to use pitfall traps with extended plastic rim plates. In comprehensive biodiversity inventories, a smaller number of pitfall traps with guidance barriers and a larger number of spatial replicates is of advantage, while due to comparability reasons, the use of simple pitfall traps will be recommended in most other cases.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{BoetzlKonleKrauss2019,
  author    = {Boetzl, Fabian A. and Konle, Antonia and Krauss, Jochen},
  title     = {Aphid cards - useful model for assessing predation rates or bias prone nonsense?},
  series = {Journal of Applied Entomology},
  volume    = {144},
  journal   = {Journal of Applied Entomology},
  number    = {1-2},
  doi       = {10.1111/jen.12692},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-204798},
  pages     = {74-80},
  year      = {2019},
  abstract  = {Predation on pest organisms is an essential ecosystem function supporting yields in modern agriculture. However, assessing predation rates is intricate, and they can rarely be linked directly to predator densities or functions. We tested whether sentinel prey aphid cards are useful tools to assess predation rates in the field. Therefore, we looked at aphid cards of different sizes on the ground level as well as within the vegetation. Additionally, by trapping ground-dwelling predators, we examined whether obtained predation rates could be linked to predator densities and traits. Predation rates recorded with aphid cards were independent of aphid card size. However, predation rates on the ground level were three times higher than within the vegetation. We found both predatory carabid activity densities as well as community weighted mean body size to be good predictors for predation rates. Predation rates obtained from aphid cards are stable over card type and related to predator assemblages. Aphid cards, therefore, are a useful, efficient method for rapidly assessing the ecosystem function predation. Their use might especially be recommended for assessments on the ground level and when time and resource limitations rule out more elaborate sentinel prey methods using exclosures with living prey animals.},
  language  = {en}
}