Edges between natural and cultivated habitats have become dominant elements of all terrestrial ecosystems. Interchanges of several groups of organisms, such as insects, occur through these edges, potentially affecting ecosystem functioning and conservation of species and communities of neighboring habitats. Different trap types are used for collecting moving insects, although their effectiveness and complementarity for sampling in edges were not previously analyzed. Here, we evaluated the assemblages collected with three commonly used trap types (flight interception—FITs, yellow pan, and pitfall traps) at the boundaries between soybean fields and native forests in Central Argentina. We compared trap types from a taxonomic and functional perspective and determined their complementarity (how different assemblages were). In total, 66,949 arthropods from 1007 species were collected. Yellow pan traps collected more species and individuals, followed by FITs and pitfall traps. Pan traps and FITs showed low complementarity, whereas both types of traps were complementary to assemblages from pitfall traps. Yellow pan traps were also linked to higher species richness of most functional groups, whereas abundances and functional composition showed different patterns. Pan traps were linked to herbivores and natural enemies, and FITs with detritivores and, to a lesser extent, pollinators. These results suggest that the combination of pitfall traps with a trap for flying insects could provide a better representation of insect communities moving through edges. The choice between pan and FITs will be related to the main groups of interest, the costs and simplicity of use, and the relevance of quantifying directional movement.

中文翻译：

---

穿越森林作物边缘的昆虫：采样方法的比较

自然栖息地和人工栖息地之间的边缘已成为所有陆地生态系统的主要元素。几类生物（例如昆虫）的交互通过这些边缘发生，可能会影响生态系统的功能以及邻近栖息地的物种和群落的保护。不同的陷阱类型用于收集移动的昆虫，尽管以前没有分析过它们在边缘采样的有效性和互补性。在这里，我们评估了在阿根廷中部大豆田和原始森林之间的边界使用三种常用陷阱类型（飞行拦截 - FIT、黄盘和陷阱陷阱）收集的组合。我们从分类学和功能的角度比较了陷阱类型，并确定了它们的互补性（组合有多么不同）。总共 66 个，收集了来自 1007 个物种的 949 只节肢动物。黄盘陷阱收集了更多的物种和个体，其次是 FIT 和陷阱陷阱。Pan 陷阱和 FIT 显示出低互补性，而这两种类型的陷阱都与陷阱陷阱的组合互补。黄盘陷阱也与大多数功能群的物种丰富度有关，而丰度和功能组成则显示出不同的模式。Pan traps 与食草动物和天敌有关，FITs 与食腐动物有关，在较小程度上与传粉媒介有关。这些结果表明，陷阱陷阱与飞虫陷阱的结合可以更好地代表昆虫群落通过边缘移动。pan 和 FIT 之间的选择将与感兴趣的主要群体、成本和使用简单性有关，