1

The Effect of Different Coloured Lights on Attractiveness to Aquatic Insects

Madison Trupp
Introduction
The diversity of insects attracted to light spans many different classification dimensions, from
taxonomical to habitat range. In order to examine these types of insects, light is often used as part of a
trap that can safely capture insects and preserve them, either alive or dead, for later analysis. While the
attractive property of light itself is well known, other properties of light must be factored in as well, such
as colour and brightness. The visibility of light may shift along the spectrum and could result in reduced
attractiveness to insects, thus potentially confounding results should different sources of light be used.
This experiment was performed to test for discrepancies between the attractiveness of different colours of
light to auatic insects. !ur null hypothesis is that there will be no difference in the diversity and
abundance of insects that different coloured lights attract, using red, blue and green lights. This theory is
tested by using different lights in different habitats. In order to compare the diversity of insects that each
different light attracts, we will use "hannon#s $iversity Index and "impson#s $iversity Index to produce
two basic values for each light in each habitat.
Methods
The experiment was performed over three days in three different parts. The first two parts were
done during two consecutive nights using hand%made traps. The traps consisted of a &' plastic soda
bottle, a source of light, a floating ob(ect to mark the location of the trap and rocks to weigh the trap
down. The tops of the bottles were cut approximately ) inches down, with a light source and rocks placed
inside. The top was then inverted to produce a tapering spout into the bottle, which was stapled and
secured shut. * string measured to 1 meter long was tied to the top of the trap and a floater, either a cork
plug or + soda bottle caps taped together, marked with fluorescent orange tape ,-ig. 1...
&
!n the first night, we set only one trap in order to determine the successfulness of the trap. The
light source used was a white '/$ light. !n the second night, twelve traps were created0 three contained
a red glow stick, three contained a blue glow stick, three contained a green glow stick and the remaining
three were left empty and acted as a control. The glow sticks were all dollar store brand. -our traps of
each colour plus the control were set in one of three locations1 either a rocky habitat, a habitat overgrown
with reeds, or a habitat containing sand and minimal reeds, and the order that the traps were placed was
completely randomi2ed. /ach night, the traps were set at sunset, which was 3144 5M, and collected in the
morning at 3144 *M. The third part of the experiment consisted of venturing into each location the traps
were placed two days later and dip%netting in order to sample the diversity of insects present in the area.
Two people swept the bottom of the habitat for two minutes before the contents of the dip%net were
collected.
/ach sample from the second and third parts of the experiment was sorted through by hand,
distinguishing live organisms from non%animal matter. The organisms were each placed in a container and
filled half%way with ethanol to kill and preserve them, then were counted and categori2ed to family with
the exception of the non%insects, which were identified to the lowest taxon possible.
Results
The results of the first part of the experiment yielded a high abundance of auatic organisms.
*lthough the organisms were not counted by hand, we drew the conclusion that the second part of the
experiment would be successful based what we observed.
The second part of the experiment yielded varying numbers of organisms caught in each trap.
-igure & demonstrates the diversity of the auatic organisms sampled during the experiment. The insects
sampled were identified to family and included 6oleoptera ,adults., 6oleoptera ,larvae., !donata
,nymphs., $iptera ,adults., 7emiptera ,adults., and Trichoptera ,larvae.. Included in the samples as well
)
were a variety of non%insects1 an unidentified species of small worm ,coloured red or white., water mites
,subclass *cari., and amphipods ,order *mphipoda.. * higher abundance of organisms was found in the
sandy with reeds habitat, where the rocky habitat contains the second highest abundance and the sandy
habitat contains the least. Through dip%netting, we find that all of the organisms captured with the light
traps, with the exception of worms and adult diptera, are observed during the day as well.
* chi%suared test was performed on the abundance values for the green, blue and red light traps,
combining the values of each habitat per light, to determine whether the difference between the numbers
of insects caught is significant ,-ig.8... * chi%suared value of +8.14) was derived from the abundance
values.
The diversity indices of each sample were then calculated to determine the diversity of the insects
found in each sample, where the non%insects were omitted from these calculations. We can see via -igure
) that the blue light in the sandy with reeds and sandy habitats produce the highest diversity indices,
where the rocky habitat produces no diversity 9 this is because only one variety of insect, adult
6oleoptera, was captured. The control traps also display no diversity as the traps either caught no insects
,in the rocky habitat. or only caught one variety of insect ,in the sandy with reeds and sandy habitat.. The
diversity indices for the rocky habitat for red and green lights show the values for lowest diversity as well,
suggesting that the rocky habitat contained less variety of insects.
Discussion
:::
5ossibility that the traps attracted predators due to abundance of prey 9 but no, wrong, because dip%net
results revealed exact same distribution of all families collected in traps.
+
References
'alala references n shit
8
Appendix
Figure 1 *uatic trap configuration used in the first and
second parts of the experiment.
Figure ! 6hart displaying abundances of different families of auatic organisms caught per sampling method.
;
Figure " * visual comparison of "hannon#s and "impson#s $iversity Indices per colour.
Figure # 6hart displaying the "hannon#s and "impson#s $iversity Indices by habitat per colour.
Figure $ 6alculating chi%suared value for abundances of insects.
<
Figure % 6hi%suare distribution.