Effect of pitfall trap type and diameter on vertebrate by‐catches and ground beetle (Coleoptera: Carabidae) and spider (Araneae) sampling
Authors:
- Markus LangeMLMarkus Lange
- Martin M. GossnerMGMartin M. Gossner
- Wolfgang W. WeisserWWWolfgang W. Weisser
- 16 September 2010
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Wiley in Methods in Ecology and Evolution
- Vol. 2 (2) , 185-190
Abstract
Summary: 1. To determine the diversity of epigaeic arthropods, pitfall traps are a suitable and widely accepted sampling method. Unfortunately small mammals such as shrews, voles and mice are accidentally caught by these traps, sometimes very frequently depending on trap type and size.2. Here we present an experiment examining the influence of trap types, conventional cup traps vs. funnel traps, and of trap diameter on catches of carabid beetles, spiders and unwanted by‐catches of small mammals.3. The number of sampled carabid beetles increased significantly with diameter of the traps and presence of a funnel. The number of species was not affected by trap type or trap size.4. For spiders, significantly more individuals and more species were found in larger traps. After correcting for difference in sample size by rarefaction, spider species number was still higher in larger traps. The use of a funnel had no effect on spider assemblages.5. Funnel traps and a smaller trap diameter strongly reduced catches of small mammals, on average by at least 2/3. While catches of arthropods increased with increasing trap size independent of trap type, the number of small mammals caught in the traps was not greater in larger traps when a funnel was used.6. Based on our results and other studies on the efficiency of different pitfall trap types, we recommend to use funnel traps of larger diameter (approximately 9 cm) to more efficiently sample epigaeic arthropod assemblages and to minimize unwanted catches of small mammals.Keywords
This publication has 19 references indexed in Scilit:
- Do not log‐transform count dataMethods in Ecology and Evolution, 2010
- Assessing biodiversity by remote sensing in mountainous terrain: the potential of LiDAR to predict forest beetle assemblagesJournal of Applied Ecology, 2009
- Pitfall trap designs to maximize invertebrate captures and minimize captures of nontarget vertebratesThe Canadian Entomologist, 2005
- Estimating the density of ground‐dwelling arthropods with pitfall traps using a nested‐cross arrayJournal of Animal Ecology, 2004
- Regional and local variation of spider assemblages (Araneae) from coastal grey dunes along the North SeaJournal of Biogeography, 2003
- Quantifying biodiversity: procedures and pitfalls in the measurement and comparison of species richnessEcology Letters, 2001
- The importance of small-scale heterogeneity in boreal forests: variation in diversity in forest-floor invertebrates across the succession gradientEcography, 1996
- Soil, Vegetation and Space: An Analysis of Their Effects on the Invertebrate Communities of a Moorland in North-East EnglandJournal of Applied Ecology, 1995
- SAMPLING CARABID ASSEMBLAGES WITH PITFALL TRAPS: THE MADNESS AND THE METHODThe Canadian Entomologist, 1994
- Limitations to the Use of Pitfall Traps in Ecological Studies Exemplified by a Study of Spiders in a Field of Winter WheatJournal of Applied Ecology, 1992