scholarly journals Ant diversity sampling in the Brazilian Amazon: a comparison of litter collection and pitfall trapping

2021 ◽  
Vol 69 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Wully B. Da Silva ◽  
Reinaldo L. Cajaiba ◽  
Eduardo Périco
Keyword(s):  
Tropical Forests ◽  
Sampling Methods ◽  
Brazilian Amazon ◽  
Pitfall Traps ◽  
Pitfall Trapping ◽  
Baited Traps ◽  
Loose Soil ◽  
Sampling Protocols ◽  
Diversity Sampling ◽  
Ant Diversity

Introduction: Ants in tropical forests are a hyper-diverse group that plays important ecological roles. Several studies on tropical forests have used different sampling protocols to capture soil ants, making it difficult to compare responses and patterns of diversity between studies. Thus, research that compares different well-structured and standardized sampling methodologies to adequately estimate the richness of ant species in tropical forests is necessary. Objective: In this study, we examined the combination of catches with pitfall traps with and without baits and litter collections for soil ant sampling. Methods: In the fall traps, we use two baited (sardines and bananas) and one non-baited. For the manual collections (litter sampling), the litter and only the topsoil of the loose soil were collected. Results: We found that traps containing sardine baits collected a greater abundance of ants, whereas non-baited traps collected a greater richness of ant species. On the other hand, litter collections captured the largest number of exclusive species, presenting a different species composition from the pitfall traps (with and without baits). In general, baited traps showed greater abundance in more degraded locations, while manual collections and unbaited pitfalls captured more individuals in preserved environments. Conclusions: Our results provide evidence that, for accurate sampling of soil ant assemblages in tropical forests, the use of different methodologies is necessary to capture a greater diversity of species because the methods differ in effectiveness according to habitat.

scholarly journals Monitoring arthropods in protected grasslands: comparing pitfall trapping, quadrat sampling and video monitoring

Web Ecology ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
pp. 15-23 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. G. Zaller ◽  
G. Kerschbaumer ◽  
R. Rizzoli ◽  
A. Tiefenbacher ◽  
E. Gruber ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Sampling Methods ◽  
Natural Populations ◽  
Video Camera ◽  
Video Monitoring ◽  
Pitfall Traps ◽  
Pitfall Trapping ◽  
Quadrat Sampling ◽  
Advantages And Disadvantages ◽  
Metal Frame ◽  
Non Destructive

Abstract. When monitoring the activity and diversity of arthropods in protected areas it is ethically advisable to use non-destructive methods in order to avoid detrimental effects on natural populations and communities. The aim of this study was to compare the efficiency of three methods for potential use for arthropod monitoring in a protected grassland: pitfall trapping, quadrat sampling and video monitoring. Pitfall trapping was conducted either during the day or over night (cup diameter 6.5 cm, unfenced, without preservation fluid). Quadrat sampling was conducted within a metal frame (width × length × height: 50 × 50 × 30 cm). Video monitoring was done on a 68 × 37 cm area using a digital high-density video camera mounted on a tripod. The study site was located in a semi-dry grassland northwest of Vienna, Austria (305 m a.s.l., 48°27′ E, 16°34′ N); the three methods were replicated five times. Across the sampling methods a total of 24 arthropod orders were observed with Hymenoptera being the most abundant, followed by Diptera and Coleoptera. The sampling methods differed considerably in number of arthropods recorded: video monitoring (2578 individuals) followed by quadrat sampling (202 individuals), nocturnal (43 individuals) and diurnal pitfall trapping (12 individuals). Diversity of arthropod assemblages varied highly significantly among the tested methods with quadrat sampling yielding the highest diversity 0.70 ± 0.22 (Gini–Simpson index, mean ±SD) followed by video monitoring (0.57 ± 0.15), diurnal pitfall sampling (0.35 ± 0.28) and nocturnal pitfall sampling (0.17 ± 0.24). Video surveillance of the pitfall traps showed that out of a total of 151 individuals crawling in the vicinity of pitfall traps none of them were actually trapped. A tabular comparison listing the advantages and disadvantages of the sampling methods is presented. Taken together, our results suggest that video monitoring has a great potential as a supplementary method for quantitative and qualitative assessments of arthropod activity and diversity in grasslands.

scholarly journals Towards precision ecology: Relationships of multiple sampling methods quantifying abundance for comparisons among studies

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Benjamin D. Hoffmann ◽  
Magen Pettit
Keyword(s):  
Sampling Methods ◽  
Full Range ◽  
Transformation Method ◽  
Sampling Techniques ◽  
Pitfall Traps ◽  
Multiple Sampling ◽  
Sampling Protocols ◽  
Zero Values ◽  
Relative Utility ◽  
Ant Ecology

ABSTRACTBecause different sampling techniques will provide different abundance values, it is currently difficult to compare results among many studies to form holistic understandings of how abundance influences ant ecology. Using three sampling methods in the same location we found pitfall traps best confirmed A. gracilipes presence recording the fewest zero values (9.1%), card counts were the least reliable (67.1%), and tuna lures were intermediate (30.1%). The abundance of A. gracilipes from card counts ranged from 0 to 20, in pitfall traps from 0 to 325, and the full range of tuna lure abundance scores (0-7) were sampled. We then determined the relationships between these three standard ant sampling techniques for the abundance of yellow crazy ant Anoplolepis gracilipes. Irrespective of the data transformation method, the strongest relationship was between pitfall traps and tuna lures, and the least strong was between pitfall traps and card counts. We then demonstrate the utility of this knowledge by analysing A. gracilipes abundance reported within published literature to show where the populations in those studies sit on an abundance spectrum. We also comment on insights into the relative utility of the three methods we used to determine A. gracilipes abundance among populations of varying abundance. Pitfall traps was the most reliable method to determine if the species was present at the sample level. Tuna lures were predominantly reliable for quantifying the presence of workers, but were limited by the number of workers that can gather around a spoonful of tuna. Card counts were the quickest method, but were seemingly only useful when A. gracilipes abundance is not low. Finally we discuss how environmental and biological variation needs to be accounted for in future studies to better standardise sampling protocols to help progress ecology as a precision science.

scholarly journals Field methods for the study of ants in sugarcane plantations in Southeastern Brazil

2010 ◽  
Vol 67 (6) ◽  
pp. 651-657 ◽  
Author(s):  
Débora Rodrigues de Souza ◽  
Erich Stingel ◽  
Luiz Carlos de Almeida ◽  
Marco Antônio Lazarini ◽  
Catarina de Bortoli Munhae ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Sampling Methods ◽  
Feeding Habits ◽  
Southeastern Brazil ◽  
Pitfall Traps ◽  
Pitfall Trapping ◽  
Field Methods ◽  
Composition And Structure ◽  
Sugarcane Pests ◽  
Sampling Efficacy ◽  
New System

The harvest of sugarcane is still traditionally done manually with the burning of straw in most cultivated areas in Brazil. However, burning has been gradually eliminated with the relatively recent use of mechanical harvesting. This will result in significant changes in the agroecosystem, as the straw will remain in the field. No investigation on Formicidae found in sugarcane plantations in Southeastern Brazil harvested by this new system has been done yet. Because of their feeding habits, many species of this family may act as predators of several sugarcane pests. In this study, the sampling efficacy of pitfall traps, baits, and underground traps with two types of attractants were evaluated. Pitfall traps gave the largest richness, while abundance was the highest from baiting. Community composition and structure differed in relation to the sampling methods used. The myrmecofauna collected with the same method with different baits was similar. Pitfall trapping was the most efficient method in this type of ecosystem; and sardine, the best attractant, due to its easy handing in the field.

scholarly journals Checklist of lizards of the Juruti, state of Pará, Brazil

Check List ◽  
2013 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 42 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ana Lúcia Costa Prudente ◽  
Fernanda Magalhães ◽  
Alessandro Menks ◽  
João Fabrício De Melo Sarmento
Keyword(s):  
Sampling Methods ◽  
Abundant Species ◽  
The Other ◽  
Sampling Effort ◽  
Pitfall Traps ◽  
Lizard Species ◽  
Species List ◽  
The Road ◽  
On The Road

We present the first lizard species list for the municipality of Juruti, state of Pará, Brazil. The list was drawn up as a result of data obtained from specimens deposited in the Herpetological Collection of the Museu Paraense Emílio Goeldi and from inventories conducted in 2008-2011. Sampling methods included pitfall traps with drift fences and time constrained searches. We considered the data collected by other researchers, incidental encounters and records of dead individuals on the road. We recorded 33 species, 26 genera and ten families. Norops tandai was the most abundant species. Compared with the other regions of Amazonia, the region of Juruti presented a large number of lizards. However, further studies with an increase in the sampling effort, could prove this area to be richer in lizards than that observed so far.

scholarly journals Evaluation of Two Surface Sampling Methods for Detection of Erwinia herbicola on a Variety of Materials by Culture and Quantitative PCR

2007 ◽  
Vol 73 (11) ◽  
pp. 3505-3510 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mark P. Buttner ◽  
Patricia Cruz ◽  
Linda D. Stetzenbach ◽  
Tracy Cronin
Keyword(s):  
Quantitative Pcr ◽  
Sampling Methods ◽  
Collection Efficiency ◽  
Test Chamber ◽  
Surface Sampling ◽  
Laminate Glass ◽  
Erwinia Herbicola ◽  
Surface Samples ◽  
Sampling Protocols ◽  
Surface Materials

ABSTRACT This research was designed to evaluate surface sampling protocols for use with culture and quantitative PCR (QPCR) amplification assay for detection of the gram-negative bacterial biothreat simulant Erwinia herbicola on a variety of surface materials. Surfaces selected for evaluation were wood laminate, glass and computer monitor screens, metal file cabinets, plastic arena seats, nylon seat cushions, finished concrete flooring, and vinyl tile flooring. Laboratory and test chamber studies were performed to evaluate two sampling methods, a sponge and a macrofoam swab, for detection of E. herbicola on surface materials. In laboratory trials, seven materials were inoculated with a known concentration of E. herbicola cells and samples were collected from the surfaces of the materials to determine sampling efficiencies. Culture analysis was ineffective for assessing E. herbicola collection efficiency because very few culturable cells were obtained from surface samples. QPCR demonstrated that E. herbicola DNA was present in high concentrations on all of the surface samples, and sampling efficiencies ranged from 0.7 to 52.2%, depending on the sampling method and the surface material. The swab was generally more efficient than the sponge for collection of E. herbicola from surfaces. Test chamber trials were also performed in which E. herbicola was aerosolized into the chamber and allowed to settle onto test materials. Surface sampling results supported those obtained in laboratory trials. The results of this study demonstrate the capabilities of QPCR to enhance the detection and enumeration of biocontaminants on surface materials and provide information on the comparability of sampling methods.

scholarly journals Anurans of the Urucu Petrol Basin, municipality of Coari, State of Amazonas, northern Brazil

Check List ◽  
2013 ◽  
Vol 9 (3) ◽  
pp. 601 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ana Lúcia Da Costa Prudente ◽  
Marcelo José Sturaro ◽  
Alessandra Elisa Melo Travassos ◽  
Gleomar Fabiano Maschio ◽  
Maria Cristina Santos-Costa
Keyword(s):  
Sampling Methods ◽  
Sampling Effort ◽  
Pitfall Traps ◽  
The Road ◽  
Northern Brazil ◽  
On The Road

We present the first species amphibian list for municipality of Coari, state of Amazonas, Brazil. The list was drawn up as a result of data obtained from specimens deposited in the Herpetological Collection of the Museu Paraense Emílio Goeldi and inventories conducted in the Urucu Petrol Base, in 2003-2004 and 2007-2009. Sampling methods included pitfall traps with drift fences and time constrained searches. We considered the data collected by other researchers, incidental encounters and records of dead individual on the road. Fifty four species were recorded. Rhinella gr. margaritifera (n= 68), Adenomera gr. marmorata (n= 59), and Osteocephalus leprieurii (n= 20) were the most collected, while ten species were less collected. Compared with other studies in eastern Amazonia, the region of Urucu presented a large number of anurans. Nonetheless, it ́s not possible to confirm this because the data collected were not standardized among studies. However, further studies by, increasing the sampling effort, could prove this area to be richer in anurans than that observed so far.

Pits or pictures: a comparative study of camera traps and pitfall trapping to survey small mammals and reptiles

2019 ◽  
Vol 46 (2) ◽  
pp. 104 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shannon J. Dundas ◽  
Katinka X. Ruthrof ◽  
Giles E. St.J. Hardy ◽  
Patricia A. Fleming
Keyword(s):  
Community Composition ◽  
Small Mammals ◽  
Survey Methods ◽  
Infrared Camera ◽  
Camera Traps ◽  
Camera Trapping ◽  
Survey Method ◽  
Pitfall Traps ◽  
Pitfall Trapping ◽  
Trapping Methods

Context Camera trapping is a widely used monitoring tool for a broad range of species across most habitat types. Camera trapping has some major advantages over other trapping methods, such as pitfall traps, because cameras can be left in the field for extended periods of time. However, there is still a need to compare traditional trapping methods with newer techniques. Aims To compare trap rates, species richness and community composition of small mammals and reptiles by using passive, unbaited camera traps and pitfall traps. Methods We directly compared pitfall trapping (20-L buried buckets) with downward-facing infrared-camera traps (Reconyx) to survey small reptiles and mammals at 16 sites within a forested habitat in south-western Australia. We compared species captured using each method, as well as the costs associated with each. Key results Overall, we recorded 228 reptiles, 16 mammals and 1 frog across 640 pitfall trap-nights (38.3 animal captures per 100 trap-nights) compared to 271 reptiles and 265 mammals (for species likely to be captured in pitfall traps) across 2572 camera trap nights (20.8 animal captures per 100 trap-nights). When trap effort is taken into account, camera trapping was only 23% as efficient as pitfall trapping for small reptiles (mostly Scincidae), but was five times more efficient for surveying small mammals (Dasyuridae). Comparing only those species that were likely to be captured in pitfall traps, 13 species were recorded by camera trapping compared with 20 species recorded from pitfall trapping; however, we found significant (P<0.001) differences in community composition between the methods. In terms of cost efficacy, camera trapping was the more expensive method for our short, 4-month survey when taking the cost of cameras into consideration. Conclusions Applicability of camera trapping is dependent on the specific aims of the intended research. Camera trapping is beneficial where community responses to ecosystem disturbance are being tested. Live capture of small reptiles via pitfall trapping allows for positive species identification, morphological assessment, and collection of reference photos to help identify species from camera photos. Implications As stand-alone techniques, both survey methods under-represent the available species present in a region. The use of more than one survey method improves the scope of fauna community assessments.

scholarly journals First standardized inventory of ants (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) in the natural grasslands of Paraná: New records for Southern Brazil

2018 ◽  
Vol 58 ◽  
pp. 12 ◽  
Author(s):  
Weslly Franco ◽  
Rodrigo Machado Feitosa
Keyword(s):  
Species Richness ◽  
New Records ◽  
Forest Fragments ◽  
Pitfall Traps ◽  
Southern Brazil ◽  
Conservation Units ◽  
Natural Grasslands ◽  
Taxonomic Novelties ◽  
First Time ◽  
Ant Diversity

Despite the large number of studies investigating ant diversity in Brazilian biomes, no ant-related studies have been carried out in Campos Gerais, a grassland physiognomy in Paraná state. The present study is the first inventory of the ant fauna in one of the few conservation units protecting the Campos Gerais landscape, the Guartelá State Park (PEG). Sixty samples were collected from different habitats within PEG using pitfall traps. Qualitative samples of leaf litter were collected from forest fragments and submitted to Winkler extractors. In addition, manual qualitative sampling was carried out in the various physiognomies within the PEG. A total of 163 species was collected and sorted into 43 genera and nine subfamilies. Five genera and 28 species were recorded for the first time in the state of Paraná. Out of these, 17 species were also recorded for the first time in the Southern Region of Brazil and two were recorded for the first time to the country. The significant species richness in the PEG and the high number of new records is a strong sign of this ecosystem’s potential to reveal taxonomic novelties. These results suggest that PEG, and the Campos Gerais as a whole, should be the target of greater conservation efforts to preserve native remnants.

Comparison of ground beetles (Coleoptera: Carabidae) and spiders (Araneae) collected in pan and pitfall traps

2003 ◽  
Vol 135 (4) ◽  
pp. 609-611 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christopher M. Buddle ◽  
H.E. James Hammond
Keyword(s):  
Sampling Method ◽  
Ground Beetles ◽  
Carabid Beetles ◽  
Pitfall Traps ◽  
Pitfall Trapping ◽  
Related Research ◽  
Pan Traps

Pitfall trapping is a widely used sampling method for biodiversity-related research of ground-dwelling arthropods. The trap is a container, usually with a preservative, that is sunk into the ground to collect arthropods which happen upon the trap perimeter and fall in (Lemieux and Lindgren 1999; Work et al. 2002). Two types receive the most use: deep circular pitfall traps and shallow rectangular pan traps (Marshall et al. 2001). The preserving fluid can influence trap efficacy (Deville and Wheeler 1998). Our objectives were to compare the efficiency of pitfall and pan traps with and without detergent in the preserving fluid (Marshall et al. 1994), using carabid beetles (Coleoptera: Carabidae) and spiders (Araneae) as focal taxa.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document