scholarly journals A comparison of pitfall trapping and quadrat sampling of Carabidae (Coleoptera) on river banks

1995 ◽  
Vol 6 (2-3) ◽  
pp. 65-77 ◽  
Author(s):  
Johan Andersen
Keyword(s):  
Species Diversity ◽  
Niche Overlap ◽  
Wiener Index ◽  
Pitfall Trap ◽  
Carabid Beetle ◽  
Carabid Beetles ◽  
Pitfall Traps ◽  
Pitfall Trapping ◽  
Sample Method ◽  
River Banks

A comparison was made betweeen the "open" pitfall trap method and quadrat sample method in microhabitats on river banks. The latter method was found to give reliable estimates of the absolute abundance of carabid beetle species. In pitfall traps individuals of the carabid beetle Bembidion schuppelii were over-represented in a sub-optimal microhabitat compared with in optimal ones. The niche-overlap between this species and B. bipunctatum was 0.19 in quadrat samples and 0.59 in pitfall traps. There was no correlation between the relative abundance of individuals of species in quadrat samples and in pitfall traps. Individuals of larger carabid species were highly over-represented compared to smaller ones in pitfall traps, an effect that was independent of diurnal rhythm and life cycle category. Biomass of larger carabid species was also overestimated in pitfall traps compared to that of smaller ones. Imagines were more efficiently captured in pitfall traps than larvae. Pitfall traps had a higher number of species than quadrat samples in all investigated sites. In four of five cases the Shannon-Wiener index gave higher species diversity in pitfall traps than in quadrat samples. It is concluded that the "open" pitfall trap method is inappropriate to study dominance ratio, the ecological role of species and perhaps the species diversity within communities. The general insight into the community structure of carabid beetles may therefore be very biased.

Pitfall trap designs to maximize invertebrate captures and minimize captures of nontarget vertebrates

2005 ◽  
Vol 137 (2) ◽  
pp. 233-250 ◽  
Author(s):  
J.L. Pearce ◽  
D. Schuurman ◽  
K.N. Barber ◽  
M. Larrivée ◽  
L.A. Venier ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Small Mammal ◽  
Pitfall Trap ◽  
Carabid Beetle ◽  
Carabid Beetles ◽  
Pitfall Traps ◽  
Shallow Trap ◽  
Trap Design ◽  
Mesh Screen ◽  
Funnel Trap ◽  
Incidental Catch

AbstractPitfall traps containing a preservative have become the standard method of sampling for epigeal invertebrates such as carabid beetles and cursorial spiders. However, they often result in high levels of mortality for small mammals and amphibians. We compared the carabid, spider, and vertebrate captures within five pitfall trap types (conventional trap, funnel trap, shallow trap, Nordlander trap, and the ramp trap) to determine the trap type that would reduce vertebrate incidental catch without compromising the capture of invertebrates. We also examined the effect of a mesh screen over pitfall traps on carabid beetle and vertebrate catches. All modifications to the conventional trap design resulted in a reduction in both small mammal and amphibian captures. The shallow pitfall trap and the funnel trap captured a carabid beetle and spider fauna similar to that captured by the conventional trap. The species compositions of the ramp trap and the Nordlander trap were different from those of the other trap types, but these traps were more efficient, capturing more species per individual captured. The ramp trap appeared to be the method of choice for sampling epigeal spiders. Thus, the choice among trap designs for invertebrates depends on the objectives of the study. However, an alternative to the conventional trap design should always be considered to reduce small mammal mortality.

scholarly journals Pitfall trap efficiency: do trap size, collecting fluid and vegetation structure matter?

2003 ◽  
Vol 14 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Matti Koivula ◽  
Johan Kotze ◽  
Laura Hiisivuori ◽  
Hannu Rita
Keyword(s):  
Propylene Glycol ◽  
Salt Water ◽  
Habitat Type ◽  
Pitfall Trap ◽  
Carabid Beetles ◽  
Pitfall Traps ◽  
Pitfall Trapping ◽  
Habitat Types ◽  
Clear Cut ◽  
Trap Size

Apart from experimental design, the selection of pitfall trap size, collecting fluid and habitat type sampled may also influence the capture efficiency of the method. We combined three field studies from two very different geographic areas, in which the efficiency of pitfall traps, using carabid beetles (Coleoptera: Carabidae), is evaluated. First, we showed that ethylene-glycol is a more efficient collecting fluid compared to commercial anti-freeze, paraffin and salt water in collecting beetles in a forest patch in South Africa. Second, we showed that larger traps (90 mm mouth diameter) are more efficient in collecting carabids than small traps (65 mm) in a meadow in Finland. We also showed that for these large traps, commercial vinegar was a better collecting fluid than propylene-glycol, but that for small traps, propylene-glycol was superior to vinegar in collecting carabids. Finally, we showed that the trappability of Pterostichus oblongopunctatus and Carabus hortensis differed in enclosures placed into two different habitat types (a forest and a clear-cut in Finland), while trappability did not differ significantly for two other species (Calathus micropterus and Pterostichus niger) in these habitat types. However, for the two Pterostichus species studied, the catches in traps placed in the centre of the enclosures were slightly higher in the clear-cut, compared to the forest, and catches were higher in enclosures with rich field-layer vegetation, compared to enclosures with poor vegetation. The three studies re-emphasise the uncertainties of using pitfall traps in ecological studies. However, with careful planning and standardisation to help avoid erroneous interpretations, pitfall trapping is an invaluable method for the field ecologist.

Effect of pitfall trap depth on epigaeic beetle sampling (Coleoptera: Carabidae and Staphylinidae) in wet forested ecosites in Alberta, Canada

2018 ◽  
Vol 150 (6) ◽  
pp. 813-820
Author(s):  
H.E. James Hammond ◽  
David W. Langor ◽  
Dustin J. Hartley
Keyword(s):  
Species Diversity ◽  
Trap Depth ◽  
Soil Surface ◽  
Organic Soil ◽  
Pitfall Trap ◽  
Pitfall Traps ◽  
Forest Stands ◽  
Soil Layers ◽  
Deep Traps

AbstractThe depth at which pitfall traps were sunk into the ground and the resulting catches of epigaeic Carabidae (Coleoptera) and Staphylinidae (Coleoptera) assemblages in subhygric to hydric ecosites with very deep organic soil layers was investigated in the upper foothills ecoregion of Alberta, Canada. Traps were installed at seven sites, with six surface traps (the pitfall trap lip <5 cm below soil surface) and six deep traps (the pitfall trap lip >20 cm below soil surface) at each site. A total of 5289 beetles representing 75 taxa were collected. There were no significant effects of trap depth on catch. Rarefaction estimates of species diversity were higher in surface pitfall traps for both taxa. The similarity of pooled catches between deep and surface traps was on average 75%, suggesting that both trap types were collecting similar faunas. We found no advantage to using deep pitfall traps in addition to surface traps to sample the epigaeic fauna of wet forest stands and peatlands.

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.

Perbedaan Kualitas Lahan Apel Sistem Pertanian Intensif dengan Sistem Pertanian Ramah Lingkungan (Studi Kasus Di Kelompok Tani Makmur Abadi Desa Tulungrejo Kecamatan Bumiaji Kota Batu)

2013 ◽  
Vol 15 (2) ◽  
pp. 90
Author(s):  
Retno Indahwati ◽  
Ign Budi Hendrarto ◽  
Munifatul Izzati
Keyword(s):  
Field Research ◽  
Environmentally Friendly ◽  
Wiener Index ◽  
Pitfall Trap ◽  
System A ◽  
The Difference ◽  
Quantitative Descriptive ◽  
Sample Method ◽  
Important Value Index ◽  
Better Than

The aim of this research to analyze the difference of apple farm quality the influence of  intensification of agriculture system with environmentally-friendly of agriculture system. A descriptive field research was conducted in June until August 2012. The soil samples were taken in each location by using disturb sample method. The Arthropods sample were taken every five days for five time by using pitfall trap method with five transek in each location.The research applied a  qualitative and quantitative-descriptive. The farm quality were comparison soil quality analyze and  compositions of ground Arthropods. The composition of ground Arthropods were analyzed using Important Value Index and the diversities were analyzed by using Shannon Wiener Index. The result showed that farm quality with environmentally-friendly of agriculture system was better than intensification of agriculture system. The ground Arthropods collected at 150 pitfall trap in environmentally-friendly of agriculture system were 15.079 individual while those in intensification of agriculture system were 9.461 individual. Based on Important Value Index (40,83-64,31), Collembolla ordo Entomobryidae family dominated in each location. Based on Shannon Wiener Index that diversity of ground Arthropods in intensification of agriculture system (H’= 1,58-2,04) was greater than environmentally-friendly of agriculture system (H’= 1,56- 1,99), but both of them at medium criteria.   Keywords : farm quality, agriculture system, Arthropods composition

scholarly journals Carabid beetle assemblages (Coleoptera) in a wooded meadow and in the adjacent habitats on the Saaremaa Island, Estonia

1995 ◽  
Vol 6 (2-3) ◽  
pp. 169-175 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tõnu Talvi
Keyword(s):  
Species Diversity ◽  
Dominant Species ◽  
Deciduous Forest ◽  
Total Sample ◽  
Carabid Beetles ◽  
Pitfall Traps ◽  
Spruce Forest ◽  
Traditional Management ◽  
Beetle Assemblages ◽  
Pterostichus Melanarius

Carabid beetles were sampled by using pitfall traps during one season in traditionally managed wooded meadow and in adjacent habitats (dry meadow, deciduous forest and spruce forest) on Saaremaa Island, Estonia. A total of 2356 carabids belonging to 35 species were caught. The number of species and species diversity were highest in the wooded meadow and lowest in the dry meadow. In the wooded meadow, the dominant species were Pterostichus melanarius (Illiger) and P. niger, (Schaller), which counted together for 49% of the total sample. The highest number of scarce species was found in the wooded meadow. Similarity of the carabid assemblages was highest between the two types of forests. The carabid assemblage in the wooded meadow was most similar to that of the deciduous forest; the values of similarity of wooded meadow versus spruce forest and wooded meadow versus dry meadow were only slightly lower. The results indicate that high biodiversity level of the wooded meadow can be maintained only through continuous traditional management.

The influence of agricultural management on the structure of ground beetle (Coleoptera: Carabidae) assemblages

Biologia ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 70 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Vladimír Vician ◽  
Marek Svitok ◽  
Karol Kočík ◽  
Slavomír Stašiov
Keyword(s):  
Species Diversity ◽  
Humus Content ◽  
Ground Beetle ◽  
Agricultural Management ◽  
Carabid Beetle ◽  
Arable Soil ◽  
Carabid Beetles ◽  
Arable Soils ◽  
General Number ◽  
Positive Effect

AbstractThe influence of agricultural management form on the structure and the species diversity of ground beetle (Carabidae) assemblages was studied. The research was carried out in the vicinity of Očová village (Central Slovakia) in 2005-2006. Carabid beetles were pitfall-trapped in four pairs of plots with the same crop, but conventionally and naturefriendly managed. In total, 54,376 individuals of 68 species of 30 genera were collected. The significantly positive effect of nature-friendly management on the number of carabid beetle individuals and species diversity was observed only in the plots with arable soil. Carabid beetles reached a higher species diversity in the plots with a higher pH and humus content. These parameters were typical of nature-friendly managed fields, and of the conventionally managed permanent grass stands. In general, number of carabid beetle individuals and species was higher in arable soils than in permanent grass stands.

Effect of habitat type and pitfall trap installation on captures of epigaeic arthropod assemblages in the boreal forest

2013 ◽  
Vol 145 (5) ◽  
pp. 547-565 ◽  
Author(s):  
J.A. Colin Bergeron ◽  
John R. Spence ◽  
W. Jan A. Volney ◽  
Jaime Pinzon ◽  
Dustin J. Hartley
Keyword(s):  
Black Spruce ◽  
Habitat Type ◽  
Soil Surface ◽  
Pitfall Trap ◽  
Habitat Associations ◽  
Carabid Beetles ◽  
Conservation Strategies ◽  
Pitfall Trapping ◽  
Local Conservation ◽  
Ecosystem Classification

AbstractIt is unrealistic to achieve high-resolution biodiversity inventories required to support local conservation strategies over large areas; however, benchmark associations between arthropods and ecosystem classification can support landscape scale biomonitoring. We investigated habitat associations of ground-dwelling spiders (Araneae), staphylinid beetles (Coleoptera: Staphylinidae), and carabid beetles (Coleoptera: Carabidae) in three forest ecosystems in northwestern Alberta, Canada and also studied the effect of variation in depth of pitfall trap installation on catch. Composition and diversity of all three taxa were correlated with the ecosystem classification map, and 20 species were strong indicators of particular habitats. The black spruce (Picea mariana(Miller) Britton, Sterns, and Poggenburg; Pinaceae) bog supported fewer species and individuals of beetles but this trend was not observed for spiders because of natural history traits associated with their performance in this environment. Pitfall trapping biases were constant among habitats enabling proper comparison of ground-dwelling invertebrate assemblages. Three species of beetles (Agonum retractumLeConte (Coleoptera: Carabidae),Pterostichus brevicornis(Kirby) (Coleoptera: Carabidae), andQuedius veloxSmetana (Coleoptera: Staphylinidae)) were disproportionally active beneath the soil surface, as catches were greater in pitfall traps with the lip situated 15–25 cm below the soil surface. Thus, even highly standardised trap placement will influence the concept of biodiversity achieved through pitfall trapping, because some target organisms are disproportionately active in subterranean zones.

SECONDARY EFFECTS OF CANOPY DIEBACK: THE EPIGEAL CARABID FAUNA IN QUÉBEC APPALACHIAN MAPLE FORESTS

1991 ◽  
Vol 123 (4) ◽  
pp. 851-859 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. Martel ◽  
Y. Mauffette ◽  
S. Tousignant
Keyword(s):  
Species Richness ◽  
Analysis Of Variance ◽  
Basal Area ◽  
Carabid Beetle ◽  
Carabid Beetles ◽  
Negative Response ◽  
Pitfall Traps ◽  
Secondary Effects ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Number Of Individuals

AbstractThe impact of canopy dieback on the activity and diversity of epigeal Carabidae was studied during the summers of 1987 and 1988 in 18 maple stands in southeastern Québec, using pitfall traps. A canopy thinning index (CTI) based on severity and incidence of dieback, and on tree basal area was calculated for each of the 72 stations sampled. An analysis of variance shows that canopy dieback had a significant effect on carabid beetle activity in 1988. The CTI was negatively correlated with the carabid species richness and diversity in 1988. The number of individuals caught per station was negatively correlated with the CTI for all species combined, except for the dominant Pterostichus coracinus Newm. in 1988. These results indicate a negative response of carabid beetles to canopy dieback in 1988; the climate may have tempered the effects of dieback in 1987.

An evaluation of methods for sampling ants (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) in British Columbia, Canada

2012 ◽  
Vol 144 (3) ◽  
pp. 491-507 ◽  
Author(s):  
R.J. Higgins ◽  
B.S. Lindgren
Keyword(s):  
British Columbia ◽  
Species Richness ◽  
Boreal Forests ◽  
Pitfall Trap ◽  
Assemblage Structure ◽  
Pitfall Traps ◽  
Pitfall Trapping ◽  
Nontarget Organisms ◽  
Total Species Richness ◽  
Total Species

AbstractAnts (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) are ubiquitous and of considerable ecological interest, yet poorly studied in Canada. Given their natural history attributes and relatively low density and diversity in cool boreal forests, there is a need to evaluate the applicability of commonly used approaches to sampling and analysis. We examined the relative utility of two pitfall trap designs, mini-Winkler litter extractions, and colony versus forager sampling for ecological studies. First, we found that Laurent (conventional) and Nordlander (modified to exclude larger nontarget organisms) pitfall traps were equally efficacious for estimating total species richness. Second, pitfall trapping yielded marginally higher total species richness than mini-Winkler litter sampling, by the incidence-based estimator (Chao2). Third, two studies considering the relationship between captures of individual ants in pitfall traps and identified ant colonies argued for caution in how pitfall captures are interpreted. In the first study, Nordlander traps placed in a grid surrounding nests ofFormica obscuripesForel revealed unique and highly patchy captures of individuals, with no patterns relating to proximity to the nest. In the second study, abundance estimates to compare ant assemblage structure in a simple grassland ecosystem by pitfall trapping (relative) and area-based hand sampling (absolute) for colonies, revealed that relative sampling does not reflect the absolute ant assemblage structure. Our results support, equivocally, the use of pitfall traps (Nordlander) over mini-Winklers in the cool moist forests of west-central British Columbia, but individual specimen counts should not be used when analysing the data.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document