S. Mahunka szerk.: Folia Entomologica Hungarica 56. (Budapest, 1995)

samples by sweep net and suction sampler were taken at five random places in both habitats. In the present study 10 press-downs that were made in a row at a distance of c. 1 m from each other (transect sampling) and emptied into one plastic bag, constituted a sample. Similarly 10 sweeps made during slow movement constituted one sweep net sample. Three pitfalls were placed in a linear row 5 m from each other in both habitats. The pitfalls had the diameter of 72 mm, and contained 50% ethylene glycol as preservative and few drops of detergent to decrease surface tension. Animals from sweep net and suction samples were killed with chloroform in situ and hand-sorted a day later in the laboratory. Fig. 2. Principal component analysis of samples taken by different methods and in different habitats by the higher taxa caught. Taxa that had an overall mean density less than 1 were excluded from the analysis. The first three factors represented 59.1 % of the total variance. Legend to labels: SWNA x = sweep net samples in alfalfa, SWNM x = sweep net samples in meadow, SUCAx = suction samples in alfalfa, SUCMx = suction samples in meadow, PIFAx = pitfall samples in alfalfa, PIFMx = pitfall samples in meadow. * Hymenoptera excluding Formicoidea