** New modular design, each trap component can be purchased and replaced individually in case of loss or damage. To replace the collection head or fabric trap body, please refer to the manual "Trap Collection Head" included in the package for detailed instructions.
Malaise traps are used extensively in biodiversity surveys because they can potentially catch many taxa of airborne insects. However, entomologists must overcome several innate shortcomings of the traditional Malaise trap: complex and time-consuming assembly and disassembly; poor mobility because of complex installation; large, open area required for set up; and high cost. These disadvantages can significantly restrict the scope and use of the Malaise trap.
Installation of the standard SLAM trap II (the Sea, Land, and Air Malaise Trap that floats on water, stands on the ground, and hangs in the sky) is a breath of fresh air. It is self-supported and freestanding. The trap is easily clipped to a framework of shock-corded poles, requiring no additional support or guy ropes. The standard SLAM trap is so simple to erect it will save time and effort for other important activities, especially when many traps need to be deployed. It is configured with cross baffles so that flying insects are collected from four sides, making wind direction and exposure to sunlight less of a concern when considering trap placement and orientation.
Improvise a flight interception trap or window trap by placing trays or ground cloths filled with preservatives underneath the standard SLAM trap.
Suspended in the air, the standard SLAM trap becomes an aerial Malaise trap. When dangled from trees, the standard SLAM trap can be elevated to heights to avoid obstacles in natural insect flyways such as high bushes or grass. With loops sewn on the standard SLAM trap, several standard SLAM traps can be daisy-chained to sample all habitats from ground level to canopy simultaneously.
Applications of the standard SLAM trap are limited only by your imagination. To make the standard SLAM trap go aquatic, you could build and tie a square PVC pipe and soda bottles at the corners of the trap, transforming the trap into a floating Malaise trap that captures insects flying over wetlands.
This all-terrain SLAM trap is made of fine Polyester fabric and a removable "moth excluder (1 by 1 cm grid) at the collecting head entrance to prevent the entry of large insects such as Lepidoptera or dragonflies. A bottom collector (sold separately) can be tied underneath the standard SLAM trap to preserve flying insects, i.e., Coleoptera, that drop when hitting barriers.
Pack Contents
x1 Fabric Trap Body
x2 Shock-corded Poles (L309 cm)
x1 Collection Head (pre-installed)
x3 Collection Bottles (x1 pre-installed)
x4 Guy Lines
x5 Alloy Pin Stakes
x1 Carrying Bag
Studies Using This Line of Products
Van Achterberg (2009). Entomologische Berichten, 69(4), 129-135.
Skvarla et al. (2014). Psyche: A Journal of Entomology, 530757.
Madliger et al. (2015). Biological Conservation, 192, 409-417.
Diehl et al. (2016). PLoS One, 11(7), e0158115.
Chiu et al. (2016). Journal of Economic Entomology, 109(3), 1317-1325.
Brown & York (2017). International Journal of Wildland Fire, 26(5), 434-443.
Krolow et al. (2017). ZooKeys, 684, 85-118.
Touroult et al. (2018). Zoosystema, 40(1), 327-365.
Chase et al. (2018). Journal of Economic Entomology, 111(5), 2255-2263.
English et al. (2018). Ecology and Evolution, 8(11), 5515-5529.
Ritter et al. (2019). Scientific Reports, 9(1), 1-13.
Joseph et al. (2020). Insects, 11(11), 795.
Bouwer et al. (2020). Journal of Pest Science, 93, 993-1005.
Borges et al. (2020). Insect Conservation and Diversity, 13(5), 508-518.
Wheater et al. (2020). John Wiley & Sons.
Boucher & Pollet (2021). Zoosystema, 43(6), 113-125.
Michael et al. (2021). Annals of the Entomological Society of America, 114(1), 27-47.
de Vries et al. (2021). Insects, 12(10), 936.
Turo et al. (2021). Journal of Applied Ecology, 58(1), 58-69.
Tsafack et al. (2021). Diversity, 13(9), 443.
Montgomery et al. (2021). Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution, 513.
Borges et al. (2022). Biodiversity Data Journal, 10, e81410.
Miller & Crowe (2022). Journal of Entomological Science, 57(2), 145-155.
Tsafack et al. (2022). Biodiversity Data Journal, 10, e80088.
Kaczmarek et al. (2022). Insects, 13(6), 507.
Lhoumeau et al. (2022). Biodiversity Data Journal, 10, e97952.
Albers et al. (2023). US Geological Survey, 1168.
Kaczmarek et al. (2023). Biodiversity and Conservation, 1-17.
Lhoumeau & Borges (2023). Diversity, 15(6), 753.
Tsafack et al. (2023). Ecological Indicators, 154, 110592.
Kass et al. (2023). Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 290, 20231185.
Huszarik et al. (2023). Science of The Total Environment, 905, 167080.
Tsafack et al. (2023). Diversity, 15(12), 1189.
Griebenow et al. (2023). Arthropod Systematics & Phylogeny, 81, 945-1018.
Tsafack et al. (2023). Forest Ecology and Management, 528, 120646.
Borges et al. (2024). Biodiversity Data Journal, 12, e116829.
Seldon, D. S. (2024). New Zealand Entomologist, 1-7.
Dodds et al. (2024). Journal of Pest Science, 1-27.
Sikes et al. (2024). Insect Conservation and Diversity, 17(5), 826-855.
Hamer et al. (2024). ZooKeys, 1202, 169-211.
Lhoumeau et al. (2024). Biodiversity Data Journal, 12, e124799.
Leponce et al. (2024). Frontiers in Forests and Global Change, 7, 1425492.
