Introduction
Insect surveys encompass a wide range of methods that vary according to the ecological characteristics of the diverse taxonomic groups, necessitating the use of suitable collection methods or tools based on the target taxa (Campbell & Hanula, 2007; Noyes, 1989; Shweta & Rajmohana, 2016). Among insects, Lepidoptera, one of the most taxonomically and biologically well-known groups, is considered a good bioindicator of environmental change because of its predominantly phytophagous nature during larval stages (Woiwod & Stewart, 1990; Woiwod & Thomas, 1992). Considering that moths constitute the largest taxonomic group among the insects collected using bucket light traps, it is necessary to use light sources that can be used consistently over long periods. Various designs for trap improvement and development are being pursued to enhance trap efficiency and reduce costs (Russo et al., 2011; van Achterberg, 2009). Additionally, in large-scale survey projects, such as the National Ecosystem Survey of Korea, which covers the entire country, it is crucial to select the most efficient survey methods to achieve the best possible outcomes, considering the available manpower and budget (Russo et al., 2011). There is a need to move beyond manpower-centered methods by adopting the latest survey techniques and improving insect-trapping methods to ensure the efficient operation of the National Ecosystem Survey of Korea. This approach will help secure quantitative data to provide reliable natural environmental information, thereby laying the foundation for sound environmental policymaking.
Internationally, studies and surveys utilizing bucket light traps have been conducted in various fields. Active research is underway to select the appropriate light sources and develop traps according to specific research objectives. Experiments using various light sources and wavelengths have been conducted to collect specific taxa or determine their taxonomic preferences (Brehm, 2017; Infusino et al., 2017; Pan et al., 2021). In addition, various light sources and wavelengths tailored for the research purpose are currently being utilized for nocturnal insect diversity surveys and pest monitoring (Pan et al., 2021; Ramamurthy et al., 2010; Shimoda & Honda, 2013). Furthermore, there is a growing trend towards the development of self-constructing traps that enhance capture efficiency and reduce costs (White et al., 2016; Zemel & Houghton, 2017).
As in other countries, research utilizing various light sources and wavelengths to identify taxonomic preferences or attract specific taxa is actively underway in Korea. Instead of conventional black light and mercury lamps, studies have increasingly focused on LED light sources, which are easier to handle and offer greater durability (Jeon et al., 2014; Lee, 2013; Song et al., 2016). Various light sources and wavelengths have been used in pest surveys and control (Jeon et al., 2014; Park et al., 2014; Song et al., 2016). However, studies on light sources and wavelengths for surveying nocturnal insect diversity in natural ecosystems are limited.
This study aims to propose guidelines for improving the terrestrial insect survey methods of the National Ecosystem Survey of Korea by verifying the efficiency of various light sources used in bucket light traps.
Materials and Methods
Survey date, survey area, and survey method
Field surveys using bucket light traps were conducted in August at six sites selected to meet the same environmental conditions (Table 1). Traps were installed at intervals of 5 m before sunset and were collected the following morning. The lighting period was set from 20:00 to 24:00 using a timer following the guidelines of the National Ecosystem Survey of Korea.
Selection of light sources and wavelengths
To compare the capture efficiency of the black-light UV (BL_UV) source currently used in the terrestrial insect field of the National Ecosystem Survey of Korea, three types of LED light sources (UV [LED_UV], Blue [LED_B], and Green [LED_G]) were selected based on a literature review and preliminary surveys. The wavelength range of the selected light sources is 360-520 nm (Table 2).
Laboratory analysis and statistical analysis
Samples collected from four different light sources at six different sites (24 samples in total) were classified by order and sent to taxonomic experts for species analysis. Classification was performed by experts specializing in Lepidoptera, Coleoptera, Hymenoptera/Diptera, and Hemiptera/other taxa.
To compare the capture efficiency among the four types of light sources, including the BL_UV light source used in the current trap of the National Ecosystem Survey of Korea and the three LED light sources used as the control group, differences in the average number of species and individuals according to the light source type were analyzed. One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was conducted to verify the mean difference, and post-hoc analysis was performed using Scheffé’s test. All empirical analyses were conducted at a significance level of P<0.05, and statistical processing was performed using SPSSWIN 25.0 (IBM, Armonk, NY, USA).
Results
Overall status by light source
Analysis of nocturnal insects captured using four different light sources over six surveys revealed 2,036 individuals from 430 species, 92 families, and 11 orders. The light source results were as follows: BL_UV (current) captured 951 individuals from 284 species, 74 families, and 11 orders; LED_UV captured 848 individuals from 277 species, 64 families, and 9 orders; LED_G captured 125 individuals from 71 species, 33 families, and 6 orders; and LED_B captured 112 individuals from 56 species, 30 families, and 6 orders (Table 3).
BL_UV had the highest number of species and individuals in the first (97 species, 196 individuals), second (95 species, 241 individuals), fourth (83 species, 161 individuals), and sixth (72 species, 106 individuals) surveys. In contrast, LED_UV exhibited the highest number of species and individuals in the third (72 species and 155 individuals) and fifth (85 species and 167 individuals) surveys.
The second survey recorded the highest number of species and individuals, with 470 individuals belonging to 156 species, 48 families, and 10 orders. In contrast, the third survey recorded the lowest number of individuals, with 307 individuals from 117 species, 42 families, and 7 orders.
Overall, the number of species and individuals captured by BL_UV and LED_UV were relatively high compared to the significantly lower numbers observed with LED_G and LED_B.
Taxonomic status by light source
Taxonomic analysis of the nocturnal insects captured over the 6 surveys revealed that Lepidoptera accounted for 258 species (60.0% of the total species) and 1,143 individuals (56.1% of the total individuals), representing more than half of the captured specimens. This was followed by Coleoptera with 74 species and 451 individuals, Diptera with 35 species and 60 individuals, Hemiptera with 29 species and 294 individuals, Hymenoptera with 20 species and 23 individuals, and Orthoptera with 4 species and 18 individuals (Table 4).
Among the 284 species and 951 individuals captured in the BL_UV (current) trap, Lepidoptera dominated with 183 species and 545 individuals, followed by Coleoptera (44 species and 199 individuals), Hemiptera (21 species and 143 individuals), Diptera (14 species and 19 individuals), and Hymenoptera (10 species and 11 individuals).
In the LED_UV trap, which captured 277 species and 848 individuals, Lepidoptera showed the highest representation, with 194 species and 495 individuals, followed by Coleoptera (41 species and 189 individuals), Hemiptera (16 species and 103 individuals), Diptera (11 species and 22 individuals), and Hymenoptera (10 species and 10 individuals).
Among the 71 species and 125 individuals captured in the LED_G trap, Lepidoptera accounted for 34 species and 49 individuals, followed by Coleoptera (20 species and 43 individuals), Hemiptera (9 species and 23 individuals), and Diptera (6 species and 8 individuals).
In the LED_B trap, which captured 56 species and 112 individuals, Lepidoptera remained the most abundant with 31 species and 54 individuals, followed by Coleoptera (10 species and 20 individuals), Diptera (10 species and 11 individuals), and Hemiptera (3 species and 25 individuals).
Main species by light source
Status of main species
The analysis of nocturnal insect species with more than 30 individuals revealed eight main species, including three species from Hemiptera, two species each from Lepidoptera and Coleoptera, and one species from Trichoptera (Table 5).
Regarding the number of individuals of the main species, Ricania sublimata had the highest count (106 individuals), followed by Berosus lewisius (102 individuals), Enochrus simulans (59 individuals), Sigara substriata (47 individuals), and Katha deplana (41 individuals).
The main species, R. sublimata, B. lewisius, S. substriata, and K. deplana, which were found in all light sources, showed a higher proportion in both BL_UV and LED_UV. In contrast, S. substriata displayed similar proportions across all light sources. Notably, Cheumatopsyche albofasciata and Marumba sperchius were observed only in the BL_UV and LED_UV treatments, indicating their tendency to appear specifically under these light conditions.
Number of exclusively captured species by light source
Analysis of the species captured exclusively by light sources revealed that both BL_UV (108 species from 46 families and 10 orders) and LED_UV (103 species from 41 families and 7 orders) showed relatively high numbers of exclusively captured species. In contrast, LED_G (18 species from 13 families and 5 orders) and LED_B (13 species from 9 families and 5 orders) exhibited significantly fewer exclusively captured species. This trend is consistent with the overall capture patterns observed for each light source (Table 6).
Comparison of captured species numbers between major light sources (black-light UV, LED light UV)
In total, there were 339 species from 86 families and 11 orders captured using the BL_UV and LED_UV light sources. Specifically, BL_UV captured 284 species from 74 families and 11 orders, whereas LED_UV captured 277 species from 64 families and 9 orders. These results indicated that the attractiveness of nocturnal insects to both light sources was similar (Table 7).
Comparison of exclusively captured species numbers among major light sources (black-light UV, LED light UV, black-light UV+LED light UV)
A total of 325 species from 76 families and 11 orders were captured exclusively by the three major light sources (BL_UV, LED_UV, and BL_UV+LED_UV). Among them, 108 species were exclusively captured by BL_UV, whereas 103 species were exclusively captured by LED_UV. The combined light source (BL_UV+LED_UV) exclusively captured 114 species. These results indicated that the ratios of exclusively captured species and overlapping captured species between the two light sources were similar (Table 8).
Status of exclusively captured main species among major light sources (black-light UV, LED light UV, black-light UV+LED light UV)
Among the 325 species exclusively captured by the three major light sources (BL_UV, LED_UV, BL_UV+LED_UV), 19 nocturnal insect species with more than 10 individuals were identified. These included 10 species from Lepidoptera, 5 species from Coleoptera, 2 species from Hemiptera, and 1 species each from Trichoptera and Orthoptera (Table 9).
Some species, such as Halyomorpha halys, Spatalia dives, Nicrophorus concolor, and Dendrolimus spectabilis, exhibited higher proportions under BL_UV than LED_UV. In contrast, Laccobius binotatus appeared exclusively in LED_UV. The other species exhibited similar capture rates between the two light sources.
Verification of capture efficiency by light source
When examining the number of species captured according to the light source type, BL_UV and LED_UV showed similarly high values, with averages of 80.83 and 77.00, respectively. In contrast, LED_B and LED_G had significantly lower values, with averages of 12.00 and 14.17, respectively.
Regarding the number of individuals captured, BL_UV and LED_UV also exhibited similar high values, with averages of 158.50 and 141.33, respectively. In comparison, LED_B and LED_G had relatively low values, with averages of 18.67 and 20.83, respectively (Table 10).
Analysis of variance results
The results of the ANOVA revealed significant differences in both the number of species (F=123.081, P<0.001) and the number of individuals (F=33.706, P<0.001) among the different light sources (Table 11).
The results of the post hoc tests (multiple comparisons, Scheffé) for the number of species and individuals showed significant differences between BL_UV and both LED_B and LED_G (P<0.001). However, there was no significant difference between BL_UV and LED_UV (P<0.001).
This indicates that the numbers of species and individuals captured by BL_UV and LED_UV were similar, whereas the numbers captured by LED_B and LED_G were comparable. However, both BL_UV and LED_UV showed distinct differences in species and individual counts compared with LED_B and LED_G (Table 12).
Discussion
The results indicated that BL_UV and LED_UV exhibited similarly high numbers of species and individuals, whereas LED_G and LED_B exhibited significantly lower numbers. This suggests that using shorter wavelengths (approximately below 355-405 nm) is more advantageous than using longer wavelengths for attracting a greater number of species and individuals (Bae et al., 2015; Pan et al., 2021). Furthermore, regardless of the lamp type (e.g., LED light, fluorescent light), species richness remained consistently high within the shorter wavelength range (380 nm, 385 nm, 390 nm, 395 nm, and 403 nm), which included UV, without significant differences (Zemel & Houghton, 2017). This finding suggests that employing a variety of short wavelengths is favorable for capturing diverse nocturnal insects.
In this study, no distinctly captured taxa were observed in the relatively long wavelength ranges of LED_B (452 nm) and LED_G (520 nm) compared with the short wavelengths of UV (BL_UV and LED_UV). However, previous studies have shown that there are preferences for specific taxonomic groups depending on the wavelength range. For example, in a comparative study of green (medium-wavelength) and blue (short-wavelength) light sources ranging from UV-A to mid-wavelengths, aquatic insects and ant species (alate forms) were more commonly captured with green light, whereas moths and beetles were predominantly captured with blue light (Komatsu et al., 2020). Additionally, in an experiment comparing medium wavelengths (approximately 583 nm) and long wavelengths (656 nm), more species and individuals were attracted to the medium wavelength in both the single and combined setups. Noctuid moths are significantly more attracted to medium wavelengths, whereas geometrid moths are equally attracted to both medium and long wavelengths (Somers-Yeates et al., 2013). However, considering the results of this and other studies, it can be inferred that most moth species are more likely to be attracted to UV wavelengths rather than to short wavelengths when UV or short-wavelength light sources are included.
Many studies on the attractiveness of nocturnal insects based on light wavelength vary in their focus, ranging from UV-A wavelengths of approximately 350 nm to longer wavelengths, such as red light at approximately 680 nm, depending on the research objectives or target taxa. However, it is challenging to derive consistent conclusions owing to differences in the wavelengths used and the resulting capture patterns. Nevertheless, the findings of this study, along with numerous others, consistently show that UV or short-wavelength light sources tend to attract a greater variety and number of insects than medium- or long-wavelength light sources. To better understand the taxonomic preferences or attraction levels of specific groups, it would be beneficial to conduct more detailed experiments that subdivide the wavelength range and consider various habitat types.
BL_UV and LED_UV significantly outperformed LED_G and LED_B, which had relatively long wavelengths, in terms of the number of captured species and individuals. Furthermore, statistical analysis confirmed that there were no significant differences between BL_UV and LED_UV, indicating that actively utilizing UV-type light sources would be advantageous for attracting a wide range of species and a large number of individuals. Because the currently used BL_UV lights are mainly imported products and are likely to undergo processes of depletion, sales discontinuation, or production discontinuation, it is time to seek new light sources. Replacing them with LED (UV) lights, which offer durability, ease of procurement, and a reduced risk of breakage, would be a reasonable choice.
Bucket light traps currently in use are imported products that are bulky, heavy, and less portable, posing challenges for field use. In addition, their high costs render them less accessible. Therefore, in addition to replacing lamps, it would be beneficial to develop and manufacture suitable traps domestically. This reduces the dependence on foreign products, lowers costs, and promotes the use of locally manufactured equipment.
Therefore, it would be advantageous to prioritize the installation of multi-wavelength LED_UV light sources in the bucket light traps used for the National Ecosystem Survey of Korea, which primarily aims to identify species. Based on the results of this and previous studies, it would also be worth considering the development of composite light sources that combine short, medium, and long wavelengths, such as LED_B, LED_G, and Cool White LED. However, efficiency testing through preliminary experiments is necessary before practical application.
Author Contributions
Conceptualization: Y. G. Han, E. J. Hong. Data curation: Y. G. Han. Formal analysis: Y. G. Han. Investigation: Y. G. Han. Methodology: Y. G. Han. Project administration: E. J. Hong. Resources: E. J. Hong. Supervision: E. J. Hong. Validation: Y. G. Han, E. J. Hong. Visualization: Y. G. Han. Writing - original draft: Y. G. Han. Writing - review & editing: Y. G. Han, E. J. Hong.
Tables
Table 1
Survey date, survey area, and survey method of present study
| Survey round | Survey date | Coordinates | Survey area | Survey method |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1st | August 6, 2022 | N 36° 24’28.80” E 126° 51’33.47” |
Janggok-ri San 20-1, Daechi-myeon, Cheongyang-gun, Chungcheongnam-do | Installation and collection of bucket light trap |
| 2nd | August 7, 2022 | N 36° 24’25.61” E 126° 51’57.81” |
Janggok-ri San 20-1, Daechi-myeon, Cheongyang-gun, Chungcheongnam-do | Installation and collection of bucket light trap |
| 3rd | August 12, 2022 | N 36° 24’23.65” E 126° 51’52.41” |
Janggok-ri San 20-1, Daechi-myeon, Cheongyang-gun, Chungcheongnam-do | Installation and collection of bucket light trap |
| 4th | August 16, 2022 | N 36° 24’38.04” E 126° 53’57.89” |
Cheonjang-ri San 26-10, Jeongsan-myeon, Cheongyang-gun, Chungcheongnam-do | Installation and collection of bucket light trap |
| 5th | August 17, 2022 | N 36° 24’11.76” E 126° 51’03.14” |
Janggok-ri 89, Daechi-myeon, Cheongyang-gun, Chungcheongnam-do | Installation and collection of bucket light trap |
| 6th | August 18, 2022 | N 36° 26’52.82” E 126° 53’06.86” |
Oryong-ri 37, Daechi-myeon, Cheongyang-gun, Chungcheongnam-do | Installation and collection of bucket light trap |
Table 2
Types and wavelengths of light sources used in present study
| Light source | Wavelength (nm) | Remarks |
|---|---|---|
| Black-light UV (BL_UV) | 360 | Current |
| LED light UV (LED_UV) | 365 | New |
| LED light Blue (LED_B) | 452 | New |
| LED light Green (LED_G) | 520 | New |
Table 3
Overall status by light source
| Survey round | Taxa | BL_UV | LED_B | LED_G | LED_UV | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1st | Order | 7 | 3 | 2 | 6 | 8 |
| Family | 34 | 8 | 8 | 35 | 46 | |
| Species | 97 | 11 | 10 | 81 | 143 | |
| Individual | 196 | 23 | 11 | 123 | 353 | |
| 2nd | Order | 10 | 3 | 5 | 3 | 10 |
| Family | 40 | 7 | 13 | 29 | 48 | |
| Species | 95 | 11 | 20 | 83 | 156 | |
| Individual | 241 | 15 | 30 | 184 | 470 | |
| 3rd | Order | 7 | 4 | 3 | 5 | 7 |
| Family | 27 | 12 | 6 | 31 | 42 | |
| Species | 67 | 15 | 8 | 72 | 117 | |
| Individual | 111 | 30 | 11 | 155 | 307 | |
| 4th | Order | 7 | 6 | 5 | 8 | 9 |
| Family | 34 | 14 | 16 | 30 | 49 | |
| Species | 83 | 19 | 26 | 70 | 148 | |
| Individual | 161 | 24 | 45 | 120 | 350 | |
| 5th | Order | 5 | 3 | 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Family | 29 | 7 | 8 | 33 | 42 | |
| Species | 71 | 8 | 9 | 85 | 127 | |
| Individual | 136 | 11 | 13 | 167 | 327 | |
| 6th | Order | 5 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 5 |
| Family | 26 | 8 | 10 | 22 | 35 | |
| Species | 72 | 8 | 12 | 71 | 123 | |
| Individual | 106 | 9 | 15 | 99 | 229 | |
| Total | 11 orders, 74 families, 284 species, 951 individuals | 6 orders, 30 families, 56 species, 112 individuals | 6 orders, 33 families, 71 species, 125 individuals | 9 orders, 64 families, 277 species, 848 individuals | 11 orders, 92 families, 430 species, 2,036 individuals | |
Table 4
Taxonomic status by light source
| Orders | BL_UV | LED_B | LED_G | LED_UV | Total | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||
| No. of species |
No. of individuals | No. of species |
No. of individuals | No. of species |
No. of individuals | No. of species |
No. of individuals | No. of species |
No. of individuals | |||||
| Lepidoptera | 183 | 545 | 31 | 54 | 34 | 49 | 194 | 495 | 258 | 1,143 | ||||
| Trichoptera | 3 | 20 | - | - | - | - | 1 | 18 | 3 | 38 | ||||
| Hemiptera | 21 | 143 | 3 | 25 | 9 | 23 | 16 | 103 | 29 | 294 | ||||
| Coleoptera | 44 | 199 | 10 | 20 | 20 | 43 | 41 | 189 | 74 | 451 | ||||
| Orthoptera | 3 | 8 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 8 | 4 | 18 | ||||
| Hymenoptera | 10 | 11 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 10 | 10 | 20 | 23 | ||||
| Mantodea | 1 | 1 | - | - | - | - | 1 | 2 | 1 | 3 | ||||
| Odonata | 2 | 2 | - | - | - | - | - | - | 2 | 2 | ||||
| Diptera | 14 | 19 | 10 | 11 | 6 | 8 | 11 | 22 | 35 | 60 | ||||
| Neuroptera | 1 | 1 | - | - | - | - | - | - | 1 | 1 | ||||
| Ephemeroptera | 2 | 2 | - | - | - | - | 1 | 1 | 3 | 3 | ||||
Table 5
Main species status by light source
| Scientific name | BL_UV | LED_B | LED_G | LED_UV | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ricania sublimata | 44 | 9 | 2 | 51 | 106 |
| Berosus lewisius | 52 | 1 | 8 | 41 | 102 |
| Enochrus simulans | 26 | - | 10 | 23 | 59 |
| Sigara substriata | 10 | 14 | 10 | 13 | 47 |
| Katha deplana | 25 | 2 | 1 | 13 | 41 |
| Geotomus pygmaeus | 21 | - | 4 | 14 | 39 |
| Cheumatopsyche albofasciata | 18 | - | - | 18 | 36 |
| Marumba sperchius | 19 | - | - | 14 | 33 |
Table 6
Number of exclusively captured species by light source
| Light source | Order | Family | Species |
|---|---|---|---|
| BL_UV | 10 | 46 | 108 |
| LED_B | 5 | 9 | 13 |
| LED_G | 5 | 13 | 18 |
| LED_UV | 7 | 41 | 103 |
Table 7
Comparison of captured species numbers between major light sources (BL_UV, LED_UV)
| Light source | Order | Family | Species |
|---|---|---|---|
| BL_UV | 11 | 74 | 284 |
| LED_UV | 9 | 64 | 277 |
| BL_UV+LED_UV | 11 | 86 | 339 |
Table 8
Comparison of exclusively captured species numbers among major light sources
| Light source | Order | Family | Species |
|---|---|---|---|
| BL_UV (exclusively captured species) |
10 | 46 | 108 |
| LED_UV (exclusively captured species) |
7 | 41 | 103 |
| BL_UV+LED_UV (overlapping captured species) |
7 | 35 | 114 |
| Total | 11 | 76 | 325 |
Table 9
Status of exclusively captured main species among major light sources
| Scientific name | BL_UV | LED_B | LED_G | LED_UV | UV (BL+LED) |
Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cheumatopsyche albofasciata | 18 | - | - | 18 | 36 | 36 |
| Marumba sperchius | 19 | - | - | 14 | 33 | 33 |
| Halyomorpha halys | 20 | - | - | 6 | 26 | 26 |
| Rhamnosa angulata | 15 | - | - | 9 | 24 | 24 |
| Notodontidae sp.1 | 14 | - | - | 9 | 23 | 23 |
| Spatalia dives | 16 | - | - | 4 | 20 | 20 |
| Nicrophorus concolor | 11 | - | - | 4 | 15 | 15 |
| Dendrolimus spectabilis | 12 | - | - | 3 | 15 | 15 |
| Spilarctia seriatopunctata | 7 | - | - | 7 | 14 | 14 |
| Isocheilus staphylinoides | 6 | - | - | 7 | 13 | 13 |
| Sunesta setigera setigera | 5 | - | - | 8 | 13 | 13 |
| Alcis angulifera | 7 | - | - | 6 | 13 | 13 |
| Teleogryllus emma | 4 | - | - | 7 | 11 | 11 |
| Metcalfa pruinosa | 6 | - | - | 5 | 11 | 11 |
| Hydrochara affinis | 6 | - | - | 5 | 11 | 11 |
| Laccobius binotatus | - | - | - | 11 | 11 | 11 |
| Pseudalbara parvula | 7 | - | - | 4 | 11 | 11 |
| Noctuidae sp.2 | 6 | - | - | 5 | 11 | 11 |
| Peridea gigantea | 7 | - | - | 4 | 11 | 11 |
Table 10
Descriptive statistics of species number and individual count by light source
| Factors | Mean | Standard deviation | Standard error | Minimum | Maximum | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| No. of species | BL_UV | 80.83 | 12.91 | 5.27 | 67.00 | 97.00 |
| LED_B | 12.00 | 4.29 | 1.75 | 8.00 | 19.00 | |
| LED_G | 14.17 | 7.22 | 2.95 | 8.00 | 26.00 | |
| LED_UV | 77.00 | 6.72 | 2.74 | 70.00 | 85.00 | |
| Total | 46.00 | 34.56 | 7.05 | 8.00 | 97.00 | |
| No. of individuals | BL_UV | 158.50 | 52.42 | 21.40 | 106.00 | 241.00 |
| LED_B | 18.67 | 8.26 | 3.37 | 9.00 | 30.00 | |
| LED_G | 20.83 | 13.83 | 5.65 | 11.00 | 45.00 | |
| LED_UV | 141.33 | 32.40 | 13.23 | 99.00 | 184.00 | |
| Total | 84.83 | 73.08 | 14.92 | 9.00 | 241.00 | |
Table 11
Analysis of variance for species number and individual count by light source
| Source | Sum of squares | df | Mean square | F | P-value | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| No. of species | Between groups | 26,062.333 | 3 | 8,687.444 | 123.081 | <0.001 |
| Within groups | 1,411.667 | 20 | 70.583 | - | - | |
| Total | 27,474.000 | 23 | - | - | - | |
| No. of individuals | Between groups | 102,558.333 | 3 | 34,186.111 | 33.706 | <0.001 |
| Within groups | 20,285.000 | 20 | 1,014.250 | - | - | |
| Total | 122,843.333 | 23 | - | - | - | |
Table 12
Post hoc tests (multiple comparisons, Scheffé) for species number and individual count by light source
| Dependent variable | (I) Light source |
(J) Light source |
Mean difference (I–J) |
P-value | 95% Confidence interval | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
||||||
| Lower bound | Upper bound | |||||
| No. of species | BL_UV | LED_B | 68.83333 | <0.001 | 54.0450 | 83.6217 |
| LED_G | 66.66667 | <0.001 | 51.8783 | 81.4550 | ||
| LED_UV | 3.83333 | 0.890 | –10.9550 | 18.6217 | ||
| LED_B | BL_UV | –68.83333 | <0.001 | –83.6217 | –54.0450 | |
| LED_G | –2.16667 | 0.977 | –16.9550 | 12.6217 | ||
| LED_UV | –65.00000 | <0.001 | –79.7883 | –50.2117 | ||
| LED_G | BL_UV | –66.66667 | <0.001 | –81.4550 | –51.8783 | |
| LED_B | 2.16667 | 0.977 | –12.6217 | 16.9550 | ||
| LED_UV | –62.83333 | <0.001 | –77.6217 | –48.0450 | ||
| LED_UV | BL_UV | –3.83333 | 0.890 | –18.6217 | 10.9550 | |
| LED_B | 65.00000 | <0.001 | 50.2117 | 79.7883 | ||
| LED_G | 62.83333 | <0.001 | 48.0450 | 77.6217 | ||
| No. of individuals | BL_UV | LED_B | 139.83333 | <0.001 | 83.7749 | 195.8917 |
| LED_G | 137.66667 | <0.001 | 81.6083 | 193.7251 | ||
| LED_UV | 17.16667 | 0.832 | –38.8917 | 73.2251 | ||
| LED_B | BL_UV | –139.83333 | <0.001 | –195.8917 | –83.7749 | |
| LED_G | –2.16667 | 1.000 | –58.2251 | 53.8917 | ||
| LED_UV | –122.66667 | <0.001 | –178.7251 | –66.6083 | ||
| LED_G | BL_UV | –137.66667 | <0.001 | –193.7251 | –81.6083 | |
| LED_B | 2.16667 | 1.000 | –53.8917 | 58.2251 | ||
| LED_UV | –120.50000 | <0.001 | –176.5584 | –64.4416 | ||
| LED_UV | BL_UV | –17.16667 | 0.832 | –73.2251 | 38.8917 | |
| LED_B | 122.66667 | <0.001 | 66.6083 | 178.7251 | ||
| LED_G | 120.50000 | <0.001 | 64.4416 | 176.5584 | ||