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 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.

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.

scholarly journals The influence of habitat type on the distribution of carabid beetles in traditionally managed “dehesa” ecosystems in NW Spain

2006 ◽  
Vol 17 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Angela Taboada ◽  
Johan Kotze ◽  
José Salgado ◽  
Reyes Tárrega
Keyword(s):  
Management Practices ◽  
Habitat Type ◽  
Local Scale ◽  
Carabid Beetles ◽  
Pitfall Trapping ◽  
Nw Spain ◽  
Habitat Types ◽  
Open Spaces ◽  
Traditional Management ◽  
Specialist Species

We investigated the responses of carabid beetles to habitat type at the local scale in traditionally managed “dehesa” ecosystems in NW Spain. The beetles were sampled from two habitat types (central grassland and surrounding forested zone) of five “dehesa” ecosystems, from May to October 2004. Atotal of 4,374 carabid individuals and 55 species were captured using pitfall trapping. Most of the species were collected from both habitat types, probably due to open spaces created between old-growth trees in the forested zone. Differences in carabid assemblage composition were found mainly due to Harpalus species characteristic from the central grassland and a few forest specialist species exclusively found in the forested zone. The maintenance of the “dehesa” structure may be of importance for carabid species adapted to the variety of habitats created, and requires the continuation of traditional management practices.

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.

Biodiversity of ground beetles (Coleoptera: Carabidae) and spiders (Araneae) across a tallgrass prairie – aspen forest ecotone in southern Manitoba

2006 ◽  
Vol 138 (4) ◽  
pp. 545-567 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert E. Roughley ◽  
Darren A. Pollock ◽  
David J. Wade
Keyword(s):  
Tallgrass Prairie ◽  
Habitat Type ◽  
Abundant Species ◽  
Ground Beetles ◽  
Forest Species ◽  
Pitfall Trapping ◽  
Habitat Types ◽  
Aspen Forest ◽  
Species Richness And Abundance ◽  
Forest Ecotone

AbstractThe objective of this study was to assess the similarities and differences between selected bioindicator groups within tallgrass prairie and adjacent aspen forest. Based on pitfall trapping from 1998 to 2000, species richness and abundance of ground beetles and spiders were examined across a tallgrass prairie – aspen forest ecotone located near Winnipeg, Manitoba. The abundance of spiders and ground beetles was higher in the forested portion of the transect than in the prairie section. There were 639 specimens of ground beetles collected, representing 53 species; 19 species were found only on the prairie, 19 species were found only in the forest, and 15 species were found in both habitats, although the abundance of most species was too low to confidently assign them to either habitat type. Excluding single records in any sampling year yielded 9 prairie species, 5 forest species, and 10 species found in both aspen forest and tallgrass prairie. The five most abundant species of ground beetles were Agonum placidum (Say), Pterostichus caudicalis (Say), P. femoralis (Kirby), P. melanarius (Illiger), and Synuchus impunctatus (Say). There were 4499 specimens of spiders collected, representing 92 species; 25 species were found only in the prairie, 15 species were unique to the aspen forest, and 52 species were found in both habitats. Excluding single records in any sampling year yielded 26 prairie species, 15 forest species, and 22 species found in both habitats. The five most abundant species of spiders were Pardosa moesta Banks, P. distincta (Blackwall), Agroeca ornata Banks, Centromerus sylvaticus (Blackwall), and Alopecosa aculeata (Clerck). Our study concurs with other studies in demonstrating that there are distinct assemblages of both groups of predators in each of the two habitat types.

DESIGN FOR A LOW-COST, COVERED, RAMP PITFALL TRAP

2000 ◽  
Vol 132 (3) ◽  
pp. 387-389 ◽  
Author(s):  
Patrice Bouchard ◽  
Terry A. Wheeler ◽  
Henri Goulet
Keyword(s):  
Low Cost ◽  
Ground Surface ◽  
Soil Surface ◽  
Pitfall Trap ◽  
Ground Beetles ◽  
Pitfall Traps ◽  
Ecological Studies ◽  
Habitat Types ◽  
Metal Design ◽  
Original Metal

Pitfall traps are used extensively to sample ground-dwelling arthropods for systematic and ecological studies. They are inexpensive and easy to use and can be operated for relatively long periods of time without maintenance. These traps can collect arthropods in numbers that are suitable for rigorous statistical analysis, although their efficiency is influenced by many biotic and abiotic variables (Greenslade 1964; Spence and Niemelä 1994). Typically, pitfall traps are most productive when they are buried in the substrate, with the upper edge flush with the soil surface; traps with their upper edge above the substrate are much less effective (Greenslade 1964). Because of this, studies of ground-dwelling arthropods in habitats where soil is thin or lacking, or where digging is difficult, are left with no satisfactory alternatives to pitfall traps. A ramp pitfall trap developed by Bostanian et al. (1983) is useful in these habitats because it can be placed on the ground surface without digging. However, the original metal design was strongly biased toward the collection of large (>10 mm) ground beetles (Coleoptera: Carabidae) (Bostanian et al. 1983); it was also large, bulky, and relatively expensive. In this paper, we describe a ramp pitfall trap that is inexpensive, easily constructed, and durable. The trap is light, portable, easily installed, and effective in collecting all sizes of arthropods and can be used in many habitat types.

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 Does the diurnal activity pattern of carabid beetles depend on season, ground temperature and habitat?

2012 ◽  
Vol 64 (2) ◽  
pp. 721-732 ◽  
Author(s):  
I.H. Tuf ◽  
P. Dedek ◽  
M. Veselý
Keyword(s):  
Significant Influence ◽  
Activity Pattern ◽  
Soil Surface ◽  
Ground Beetles ◽  
Floodplain Forest ◽  
Ground Temperature ◽  
Carabid Beetles ◽  
Diurnal Activity ◽  
Pitfall Trapping ◽  
Clear Cut

The influence of season, ground temperature and habitat on diurnal epigeic activity of ground beetles (Coleoptera: Carabidae) in floodplain forest and neighboring clear-cut area was studied in late spring and early autumn by pitfall trapping. Among the material collected were 35 species of ground beetles. We recorded a significant influence of daytime factors on epigeic activity in 16 species. The epigeic activity of 13 species was co-affected by the temperature of the soil surface. The activity of some species differed, depending on season and locality.

scholarly journals Habitat and Landform Types Drive the Distribution of Carabid Beetles at High Altitudes

Diversity ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 13 (4) ◽  
pp. 142
Author(s):  
Mauro Gobbi ◽  
Marco Armanini ◽  
Teresa Boscolo ◽  
Roberta Chirichella ◽  
Valeria Lencioni ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
High Altitude ◽  
Ground Beetle ◽  
Habitat Type ◽  
Total Activity ◽  
Carabid Beetles ◽  
Taxonomic Distinctness ◽  
Habitat Types ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Activity Density ◽  
Sampling Points

The high altitude mountain slopes of the Dolomites (Italian Alps) are characterized by great habitat and landform heterogeneities. In this paper, we investigated the effect of a Nature 2000 habitat and landform types in driving the high altitude ground beetle (Carabidae) distribution in the Western Dolomites (Brenta group, Italy). We studied the carabid assemblages collected in 55 sampling points distributed in four Nature 2000 habitat types and four landform types located between 1860 and 2890 m above sea level (a.s.l.). Twenty-two species, half of them Alpine endemics, were sampled. Species richness and taxonomic distinctness did not show any significant difference among habitat types; conversely, these differences became significant when the landform type was considered. Total activity density and the frequency of brachypterous, endemic and predatory species showed significant differences between both habitat and landform types. An indicator species analysis identified twelve species linked to a specific habitat type and thirteen species linked to a specific landform type. A canonical correspondence analysis showed that altitude and vegetation cover drove the species distribution in each habitat and landform type while the aspect had a weak effect. Our results highlight the need for a geomorphological characterization of the sampling points when high altitude ground-dwelling arthropods are investigated.

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