The efficiency of two widely used commercial live-traps to develop monitoring protocols for small mammal biodiversity |
| |
| Institution: | 1. Museu de Ciències Naturals de Granollers, 08402 Granollers, Barcelona, Spain;2. Department of Biogeography and Global Change (BGC-MNCN), Museo Nacional de Ciencias Naturales (CSIC), c/ Serrano 115 bis, E-28006 Madrid, Spain;1. Departamento de Biologia Animal, Faculdade de Ciências, Universidade de Lisboa, R. Ernesto de Vasconcelos, Ed. C2, 2° Piso, Campo Grande, 1749-016 Lisboa, Portugal;2. CIBIO/InBio-UE, Centro de Investigação em Biodiversidade e Recursos Genéticos, Pólo de Évora, Universidade de Évora, Núcleo da Mitra, Apartado 94, 7002-554 Évora, Portugal;3. EDP Biodiversity Chair CIBIO/InBio-UP, Centro de Investigação em Biodiversidade e Recursos Genéticos, Universidade do Porto, Campus Agrário de Vairão, 4485-661 Vairão, Portugal;1. Escuela de Pregrado, Facultad de Ciencias Agronómicas, Universidad de Chile, Chile;2. Manque Bioexploraciones, 8240634 Santiago, Chile;3. Laboratorio de Ecología de Vida Silvestre, Facultad de Ciencias Forestales y Conservación de la Naturaleza, Universidad de Chile, Chile;1. Borneo Nature Foundation, Jalan Semeru No. 91, Bukit Hindu, Palangka Raya, Indonesia;2. Wildlife Conservation Research Unit (WildCRU), Department of Zoology, Oxford University, The Recanati-Kaplan Centre, Tubney House, Abingdon Road, Tubney, OX13 5QL, UK;3. Forestry Department, Mulawarman University, Kampus Gunung Jl. KH. Dewantara, Samarinda 75116, East Kalimantan, Indonesia;1. Instituto Argentino de Investigaciones de las Zonas Áridas (IADIZA), CCT-CONICET, MENDOZA, Av. A. Ruiz Leal s/n, Parque General San Martín, CC 507, Mendoza CP 5500, Argentina;2. Chair of Restoration Ecology, Technische Universität München, Emil-Ramann Straße 6, D-85350 Freising, Germany;3. Facultad de Ciencias Agrarias, Universidad Nacional de Cuyo, Almirante Brown 500, Luján de Cuyo, CP 5505 Mendoza, Argentina |
| |
| Abstract: | Biodiversity monitoring programs have been implemented worldwide as a source of information on ecosystem functioning. However, controversy concerning the indicators that should be monitored, and the development of adequate monitoring protocols for multi-species communities still hamper such implementation, especially in the case of small mammals. We analyze differences in the efficiency of the two most widely used commercial traps (Longworth and Sherman) working simultaneously in eight different mountain habitats in Andorra country (NE Iberia) as a first step for establishing standardized sampling protocols for species-rich small mammal communities. From summer 2008 to fall 2010 (six sampling occasions) we captured a total of 728 small mammal individuals (1445 including recaptures) of 13 species (12 in Longworth and 11 in Sherman, 10 species shared). Despite some specific biases (underestimation of two large species by Longworth traps and underestimation of one small species by Sherman traps), estimates of community parameters and similarity indexes, sampling efficiency (number of small mammals trapped), detectability, mean weight, and sex-ratio of the most abundant species, were similar for both sampling methods. Our results suggested that both trap models could be used interchangeably – without relevant biases – in small mammal community assessments where large species are infrequent. Focussing monitoring programs on highly detectable small mammal species (common species) would allow the establishment of robust monitoring programs aimed at reducing the time invested and economic costs. |
| |
| Keywords: | Andorra Biodiversity Longworth traps Monitoring Mountains Sampling techniques Sherman traps Small mammals |
| 本文献已被 ScienceDirect 等数据库收录！ |
|
