Hand searching versus pitfall trapping: how to assess biodiversity of ground beetles (Coleoptera: Carabidae) in high altitude equatorial Andes?

The use of ground beetles (Coleoptera: Carabidae) as bioindicators of environmental change depends on the reliability and the effectiveness of the sampling methods. Those that have been tested in the temperate zone and in tropical forests still await experimentation in tropical high-altitude environments. For the first time, pitfall trapping and hand searching have been compared in Ecuadorian páramo above 4000 m a.s.l., in terms of practical effectiveness. The study was performed on six volcanoes and was based on the comparison of 28 sampling sessions (pitfall trapping and hand searching) performed along two different elevational belts [lower superpáramo (LSP) and upper superpáramo (USP)]. Analyses of sampling sessions showed that detected species richness is slightly higher with hand searching than with pitfall trapping, regardless of the elevation. Additionally, hand searching is more time-effective than pitfall trapping. The performance of the sampling method slightly varies when species assemblage composition is analysed in relation to elevational belts. In the LSP, hand searching and pitfall trapping should be simultaneously used to obtain exhaustive inventories of carabid biodiversity, since different species are likely to be collected by each method. In the USP, hand searching and pitfall trapping efficiency is very similar, but hand searching allows to collect a slightly larger number of species. Lastly, the sample-based rarefaction curves showed that four temporal replicates are mandatory to obtain a robust dataset and an exhaustive inventory of the true species richness and species assemblages composition. Our findings suggest a combined use of hand searching and pitfall trapping in the LSP, while both methods can be used alone for surveying carabids in the USP. Furthermore, hand searching is recommended if the aim is to obtain an inventory of species diversity, whereas pitfall trapping seems more convenient for fine grain ecological and comparative studies.     

Is pitfall trapping a valuable sampling method for grassland Orthoptera?

Common methods to assess diversity and abundance of Orthoptera are sweep netting, transect counts and box-quadrat sampling. Pitfall trapping, by contrast, is rarely used, and the value of this method is still being questioned. In 2008, we studied Orthoptera species richness and abundance in five vegetation types along a gradient of dune succession on the Baltic Sea island of Hiddensee (NE Germany) by comparing transect-count and pitfall-trapping data. Using transect counts, 12 species were detected in the study area. With pitfall traps, three chorto- and thamnobiont Ensifera species (C. dorsalis, M. roeselii and T. viridissima) were not caught at all, and it was only in low-growing and sparsely-vegetated grey dunes that all present species were detected. With pitfall traps, the proportion of present species recorded strongly declined with increasing height and density of the vegetation type. Assuming that transect counts are a good proxy for relative Orthoptera densities, densities ascertained by pitfall traps are strongly biased by vegetation structure and locomotive behaviour of the species. More than 80% of all individuals were caught in sparsely-vegetated grey dunes. Frequency patterns of the species also differed. Using pitfall traps, especially chortobiont species were significantly underrepresented. Qualitative and quantitative sampling of Orthoptera using pitfall traps seems only reasonable in habitats with low and sparse vegetation and a high proportion of geobiont species.     

The energetic equivalence rule rejected because of a potentially common sampling error: evidence from carabid beetles

Abundance data from pitfall traps are widely used to estimate the relationship between beetle body size and abundance. Such data probably overestimate densities of large bodied species and may overestimate slopes of size‐abundance relationships. Here, we test this idea by comparing size‐abundance patterns found using data from pitfall trapping with those found with data from a quantitative method of estimating abundance, quadrat sampling. We use data from a total of 47 communities. As expected, slopes of size‐abundance relationships are significantly more positive when estimated using data from pitfall traps compared to when using quadrat sampling data. This was seen when looking across different communities, within communities sampled by both methods and when focusing on the set of species found by both methods within a community. These results were also generally found regardless of method of analysis, which were done using regression with species values as independent data points and using the independent contrast method, and with slopes estimated using ordinary least square regression or the structural relation. Most important, slopes of size‐abundance relationships based on data from pitfall traps were on average significantly more positive than ?0.75 on log–log scales, and thus inconsistent with the energetic equivalence rule. Slopes based on quadrat sampling, on the other hand, were on average not significantly different from ?0.75. The rejection of the energetic equivalence rule based on data from pitfall traps here is therefore a sampling artefact. Similar problems may apply to abundance data from virtually all insect trapping methods, and should make us consider re‐examining many of the size‐abundance patterns documented so far. As a large proportion of all animal species are insects, and traps are widely used to estimate abundance, this is a potentially important problem for our general understanding of the relationship between species body size and abundance.     

A comparison of pitfall traps with bait traps for studying leaf litter ant communities.

A comparison of pitfall traps with bait traps for sampling leaf litter ants was studied in oak-dominated mixed forests during 1995-1997. A total of 31,732 ants were collected from pitfall traps and 54,694 ants were collected from bait traps. They belonged to four subfamilies, 17 genera, and 32 species. Bait traps caught 29 species, whereas pitfall traps caught 31 species. Bait traps attracted one species not found in pitfall traps, but missed three of the species collected with pitfall traps. Collections from the two sampling methods showed differences in species richness, relative abundance, diversity, and species accumulation curves. Pitfall traps caught significantly more ant species per plot than did bait traps. The ant species diversity obtained from pitfall traps was higher than that from bait traps. Bait traps took a much longer time to complete an estimate of species richness than did pitfall traps. Little information was added to pitfall trapping results by the bait trapping method. The results suggested that the pitfall trapping method is superior to the bait trapping method for leaf litter ant studies. Species accumulation curves showed that sampling of 2,192+/-532 ants from six plots by pitfall traps provided a good estimation of ant species richness under the conditions of this study.     

Evaluation of three methods for sampling ground-dwelling Ants in the Brazilian Cerrado

Few studies have evaluated the efficiency of methods for sampling ants, especially in regions with highly variable vegetation physiognomies such as the Cerrado region of central Brazil. Here we compared three methods to collect ground-dwelling ants: pitfall traps, sardine baits, and the Winkler litter extractor. Our aim was to determine which method would be most appropriate to characterize the ant assemblages inhabiting different vegetation types. More species were collected with pitfall traps and with the Winkler extractor than with sardine baits. Pitfall traps collected more species in the cerrado (savanna) physiognomies, particularly in those with a poor litter cover, whereas the Winlker extractor was more efficient in the forest physiognomies, except the one subject to periodic inundations. There was a low similarity in species composition between forest and cerrado physiognomies, and this pattern was detected regardless of the method used to sampling ants. Therefore, even the use of a single, relatively selective method of collection can be enough for studies comparing highly distinct habitats and/or conditions. However, if the purpose of the sampling is to produce a more thoroughly inventory of the ant fauna, we suggest the use of a combination of methods, particularly pitfall traps and the Winkler extractor. Therefore, the Ants of the Leaf-Litter (ALL) Sampling Protocol appear to be an adequate protocol for sampling ants in the highly-threatened Brazilian cerrado biome.     

Ant species diversity in the 'Grands Causses' (Aveyron, France): In search of sampling methods adapted to temperate climates

This study aimed at showing the applicability of using a combination of four sampling methods (i.e., Winkler extractors, pitfall traps, baiting and manual collection), something most often conducted in the tropics, to create an inventory of ant species diversity in temperate environments. We recorded a total of 33 ant species in the Grands Causses by comparing three vegetal formations: a steppic lawn ('causse' sensu stricto), which was the most species-rich (29 species), followed by an oak grove (22 species) and a pine forest (17 species). No sampling method alone is efficient enough to provide an adequate sampling, but their combination permits one to make a suitable inventory of the myrmecofauna and to obtain information on the ecology of these ant species.     

Pitfall trapping of scarce Orthoptera at a coastal nature reserve in Essex, UK

The value of pitfall trapping was questioned in a recent review of methods for sampling Orthoptera in grassland ecosystems. However, subsequent to the publication of this review, interesting data has become available from pitfall trapping at Colne Point, an important coastal nature reserve in Essex, UK. As a result of this trapping, the nationally scarce and Essex Red Data List species, Platycleis albopunctata, was rediscovered in the county. This tettigoniid was believed to be extinct in Essex as previous visual searches for the insect at Colne Point had failed to locate it. Large numbers of the Essex Red Data List species, Myrmeleotettix maculatus, were also captured, as were specimens of the nationally scarce cockroach, Ectobius panzeri (Dictyoptera). Systematic pitfall trapping at Colne Point was therefore pivotal in recording scarce species such as P. albopunctata which had proved difficult to locate by visual searching methods.     

Comparing methods used in estimating biodiversity on sandy beaches: Pitfall vs. quadrat sampling

We compared the two most commonly used sampling methods, pitfall trapping and quadrat sieving, to study community diversity and talitrid abundance on sandy beaches. They are both widely used methods, however they are related to different behaviors: surface activity (pitfall traps) and burrowing in the substrate (quadrat sieving). To detect bias intrinsically generated by the use of different sampling methods, we applied both methods on a set of five beaches in New South Wales, Australia. The set included non-contiguous beaches, exposed and sheltered, more or less affected by recreational use. The results indicated a high fluctuation in biodiversity features. However, the most human-frequented beaches were grouped together by Multi Dimensional Scaling, and substrate-modifiers talitrid amphipods (sand-hoppers), played a major role in this scaling. The analysis of similarities (ANOSIM) indicated the roles of exposure and human recreational use in shaping the community, while the methods (quadrats vs. traps) resulted in higher fluctuation within samples than between, and informative outliers. Generalized Linear Models developed to estimate the probability of capture of talitrids by sampling method pointed to a higher probability to capture both sand-hoppers and beach-hoppers with the quadrat method. We finally suggest: (1) the comparative use of both sampling methods whenever possible, to capture multiple information and avoid bias in biodiversity estimates; and (2) an ad-hoc strategy when dealing with target populations. In particular, attention should be paid when targeting co-occurring talitrid species characterized by different ecology and behavioral traits: sand-hoppers (substrate modifiers) appeared to be more sensitive than beach-hoppers (non-substrate modifiers) to the impacts considered. In terms of biodiversity assessment the methods were equal, but for talitrid sampling quadrat sieving was more efficient.     

Sampling the rarest: threatened beetles in boreal forest biodiversity inventories

Presence or absence of threatened species in samples is information that is widely used in designing and implementing conservation actions. We explored the effectiveness of beetle (Coleoptera) inventories and contribution of different sampling methods in revealing occurrences of threatened and near threatened species in boreal forests. The number of species caught using traps in a particular area proved to be a useful indicator of the representativeness of data, the relationship between total number of species and the number of threatened and near threatened species being almost exponential. Samples containing less than 200 trapped species (or 2000 individuals) are almost useless in surveying threatened and near threatened species. The probability of finding such species increases considerably when the number of trapped species exceeds 400. Window traps attached directly on the trunks of dead trees proved to be the most efficient sampling method in trapping threatened beetles, whereas many other standard methods gave relatively poor results. We suggest that the best alternative in surveying threatened species in boreal forests is a combination of intensive direct searching and trunk window traps. Finding threatened beetles with rigorous probability requires very large sample sizes, even if the most effective sampling methods are used. For example, ranking 10 boreal forest areas to be protected according to the occurrence of threatened species with some reliability may require trapping of over 100000 beetle individuals. Collecting and identifying these large samples routinely in conservation actions is not feasible, which means that shortcuts (indicators etc.) are necessary. However, a lot of good-quality inventories with appropriate sampling efforts are needed before these shortcuts can be identified and elaborated. Such inventories are also crucial for the improvement of the classification of threatened species and full assessment on how past forest management has eventually affected the biota.     

北京市珍珠泉乡不同昆虫采集方法采集效果对比分析

为了探究科研调查中不同昆虫采集方法的采集效率差异,在北京珍珠泉乡不同的生境类型中,采用样线法、马氏网法、灯诱法、陷阱法(糖醋液)4种采集方法进行昆虫采集,按生境类型对不同采集方法采集的昆虫进行统计分析.在实验中共采集昆虫3996头,隶属12目87科,其中在昆虫种类数量上,鳞翅目最多,其次是半翅目和鞘翅目;在数量上,半翅...     

How to evaluate and reduce sampling effort for ants

Representative sampling of ant communities is time-consuming and laborious. Due to their manifold habitat requirements and sociobiological attributes, a suite of sampling methods is necessary to detect nearly all ant species in a given habitat. We analysed how well different combinations and intensities of sampling methods are suited to assess ant species richness and community patterns. Sampling occurred at 24 sites in mountain and floodplain habitats in Austria using pitfall traps, Winkler litter extraction, hand sampling of foragers, and colony sampling. Of these, pitfall traps delivered the largest species numbers. We drew 19 subsets of sampling approaches and compared these to the complete data. Many subsets that allowed for substantial reduction of work effort nonetheless reflected well the beta diversity patterns of the whole dataset. In contrast, alpha diversity assessment was more sensitive to reduced sampling effort. Pitfall traps turned out to be indispensable to collect ant species for biodiversity studies, but the optimal combination of sampling methods varied between habitat types. In rugged montane habitats pitfalls should be complemented at least by colony sampling. In floodplain forests the number of pitfall trap replicates can be reduced, but inclusion of Winkler samples is advisable.     

Inventory and Bioindicator Sampling: Testing Pitfall and Winkler Methods with Ants in a South African Savanna

The sampling efficiency and consistency of pitfall traps and Winkler samples for inventory, bioindicator and ecological studies in savanna habitats was compared using ants. Pitfall traps are often used for ant collecting while Winkler litter sampling has until now had rather limited use. We test Winkler sampling for the first time in a South African savanna. Pitfall traps were more efficient and productive than Winkler sampling for epigaeic ants, with a greater total species richness and higher abundance of ants recorded. Winkler samples contributed few additional species. The relative abundance of different sized ants was different with the two collection methods. Winkler sampling was found to catch greater numbers of smaller ants than pitfall trapping, whereas pitfall trapping caught more larger ants. The standard collecting Winkler quadrat size of 1m² did not perform as well as 2× m² quadrats combined for one sample.     

A comparison of three methods to survey saproxylic beetles in hollow oaks

One of the most endangered assemblages of species in Europe is insectsassociated with old trees. For that reason there is a need of developing methodsto survey this fauna. This study aims at comparing three methods – windowtrapping, pitfall trapping and wood mould sampling – to assess speciesrichness and composition of the saproxylic beetle fauna in living, hollow oaks.We have used these methods at the same site, and to a large extent in the sametrees. Useful information was obtained from all methods, but they partiallytarget different assemblages of species. Window trapping collected the highestnumber of species. Pitfall trapping collected beetles associated with treehollows which rarely are collected by window traps and therefore it isprofitable to combine these two methods. As wood mould sampling is the cheapestmethod to use, indicator species should preferably be chosen among specieswhich are efficiently collected with this method.     

An Efficient Pit-light Trap to Study Beetle Diversity

A new, highly efficient pit-light trap is described and results of experiments on its efficacy that were carried out in various types of forests are presented. The Luminoc® insect trap is made of two parts: a 1-L collection container inserted into the ground and an upper container which houses a 6-V lantern battery and a circuit for electronic control of a 1.8-W miniature fluorescent tube. A cover is fixed under the upper container to prevent rainwater from entering the collection container. The pit-light trap caught significantly more specimens, species and families of Coleoptera than passive pitfall traps. Many species of common families, such as Carabidae, Cantharidae, Curculionidae, Elateridae, Pyrochroidae, Scarabaeidae, Silphidae and Tenebrionidae were mainly caught in pit-light traps. Several species of uncommon families such as Byrrhidae, Melandryidae, Scraptiidae, Stenotrachelidae and Throscidae were caught only in pit-light traps. The light source increases the sampling area of a trap to include many micro-habitats, which makes pit-light traps more efficient tools that provide less variable results than the passive pitfall traps. The use of only three pit-light traps allows the capture of three times more 'abundant and common' species than any number of passive pitfall traps could provide. Thus, the pit-light trap allows an easier and more accurate characterization of Coleoptera communities than the passive pitfall trap. Because of its high efficacy, the pit-light trap should be considered as a standard tool to study, monitor and inventory beetle diversity.     

陷阱法的改进及其在稻田蜘蛛取样中的应用

在稻田保水的情况下,使用传统的取样方法调查地面活动的节肢动物存在很大的困难。为了准确监测稻田地面活动节肢动物的物种及其个体数量和时间动态,对陷阱法在水稻田的应用进行了改进。以稻田地面活动的优势种狼蛛(Lycosidae)为监测对象,采用改进的陷阱法——"土堆陷阱法"取样,并以常用的吸虫器法作对比,验证土堆陷阱法的应用效果。建议以土堆陷阱法作为稻田地面节肢动物的调查采样方法。     

Can Malaise traps be used to sample spiders for biodiversity assessment?

Malaise traps are typically used to sample a range of flying insect groups; however non-target taxa such as spiders may also be collected in large numbers. In this study, spiders were sampled in peatlands and wet grasslands and catches in Malaise and pitfall traps were compared in order to determine the adequacy of Malaise traps for use in spider biodiversity assessment. Overall, the number of species and individuals caught in Malaise and pitfall traps were comparable, although more species were sampled in Malaise traps in locations with a greater structural diversity of the vegetation. The spider fauna sampled by the Malaise traps differed from that of the pitfall traps, but both methods consistently separated the species assemblages by biotope. These results demonstrate that Malaise traps are effective at sampling spiders and indicate that they can be used in biodiversity assessment. In addition the complementary species sampled by each method mean that employing both techniques will be useful where a full inventory of the species is required. The authors do not suggest that Malaise traps should be used solely to sample spiders; however, if traps are set to collect insects, identification of the spiders sampled may reduce the need to employ additional sampling techniques.     

Detecting invertebrate responses to fire depends on sampling method and taxonomic resolution

New knowledge about the responses of species to fire is needed to plan for biodiversity conservation in the face of changing fire regimes. However, the knowledge that is acquired may be influenced by the sampling method and the taxonomic resolution of a study. To investigate these potential sampling biases, we examined invertebrate responses to time since fire in mallee woodlands of southern Australia. Using a large‐scale replicated study system, we sampled over 60 000 invertebrates with large pitfall traps, wet pitfall traps and sweep nets, and undertook analyses at morphospecies and order level. Large pitfalls and sweep nets detected several strong fire effects, whereas wet pitfall traps detected few effects. Invertebrate abundance in sweep nets was highest shortly after fire because of grasshopper outbreaks. Several additional morphospecies showed strong preferences for different stages in the post‐fire succession. In contrast with morphospecies effects, analyses at order level either failed to detect fire effects or were driven by the most abundant species. For fire research to produce credible results with the potential to guide management, it must use a range of sampling techniques and undertake analyses at (morpho)species level. Homogeneous fire management, such as fire suppression in fragmented landscapes or widespread frequent burning for asset protection, is likely to cause declines in fire‐affected invertebrates.     

Diversity and composition of epigeal arthropods using pitfall trapping method in different habitat types of Abu Dhabi Emirate,UAE

Pitfall trapping is an efficient self-sampling method for capturing epigeal arthropods for ecological and faunistic studies. During the present study, conducted between March 2009 and March 2015, pitfall trapping was undertaken in five study sites of different habitats in Abu Dhabi Emirate. During the study period a total of 94 monitoring visits were made to collect data from the pitfall traps at five sites in Abu Dhabi. A total of 36,238 individuals of ground-dwelling arthropods of 121 different species belonging to 14 orders and 46 families were recorded from all the study sites using pitfall traps. The order Coleoptera (beetles) was recorded to be the most dominant order with 46 species followed by Hymenoptera (ants, bees & wasps) with 24 species. On average 37.5 ± 3 (mean ± SE) species were recorded every month from all the study sites and number of species did not vary significantly across the months (df = 11, F = 0.48, p = 0.91 one-way – ANOVA). The arthropod fauna was recorded to be highly diversified in different habitat types, but the number of individuals were not evenly distributed across the study sites (H) 1.10, (E) 0.53, Shannon Diversity Index). The highest diversity of arthropods was recorded from a site Wadi Tarabat, followed by Al Wathba Wetland Reserve (AWWR) and Abu Al Abyed. Our findings indicate that to study ground dwelling invertebrate species, pitfall trapping is an efficient method. Moreover, capture efficiency of pitfall traps can be affected by climatic factors and habitat types of Abu Dhabi Emirate. The ideal period to encounter the highest number of species is between March to April and September to November across all the habitat types.     

Effectiveness of genera as a higher-taxon substitute for species in ant biodiversity analyses is not affected by sampling technique

Survey costs and a lack of taxonomists are often the main impediments to biodiversity inventories. The use of a higher-taxon approach that is efficient in representing species patterns within a short period of time is one way to overcome these constraints, especially if these responses are consistent at various spatial scales and sampling techniques. Here, we evaluated whether the use of pitfall trapping or Winkler extraction influenced the utility of genus as a surrogate to predict patterns of species richness and composition related to environment. The study sites were spread along 10 degrees of latitude, covering phytophysiognomies with different topographic characteristics. We recorded 450 ant species/morphospecies distributed in 70 genera. Pitfall-traps captured a larger proportion of species (77–98%) and genera (71–100%) per site. Genus was efficient in predicting variations in richness, and assemblage composition detected at the species level, using pitfall-traps or Winkler extractors. The higher-taxon approach saved approximately 40% of the surveys costs. The negative effect of the species-genus ratio was detected only on species composition, but it did not affect the quality of predictions using genera. The results are consistent with the hypothesis that genus can be used as a proxy for broader sets of species independent of sampling technique or environmental heterogeneity. The use of pitfall-traps or Winkler extractors for genus-level identification proved to be cost-efficient and time-efficient and should work well in other regions requiring conservation effort and monitoring programs.     

笼捕法和陷阱法对森林小型兽类多样性监测效率比较

<正>小型兽类包括食虫目(Insectivora)、啮齿目(Rodentia)、翼手目(Chiroptera)、兔形目(Lagomorpha)等,物种数量多,分布广,适应能力强,对环境变化敏感,因此其群落组成和种群数量变化可较好地反映生境变化的质量和人类活动的干扰程度(肖治术等,2002;李俊生等,2003;仝磊和路纪琪,2010)。小型兽类多样性一直是生物多样性和生态环境监测与评价的重要指示类群之一(周立志和马勇,2002)。统计动物毛发、粪便、巢穴、叫声、足迹等动物痕迹以及直接观察等方法已被广泛用于兽类物种监测和种群密度估计(Eberhardt and Van Etten,1956;Bider,1968;Gannon