Abstract
Pitfall trapping remains one of the most frequently used methods to assess ground-active arthropods’ diversity and density. Yet, one of its main drawbacks, the possibility that repeated collecting may affect the study objects’ population, has not been formally tested. We studied the effect of a yearlong epigeal pitfall trapping exercise with 22 fortnightly capture events in four differently disturbed areas at the Colombian Pacific coast. A transect of 100 m length with ten equidistant pitfall traps was established in each area, and the traps were operated twice a month for 24 hours. Using count data regression models, we find that trapping did not affect subsequent captures when we analyzed non-ant arthropods. For ants, regression estimates indicate that each subsequent trapping in highly-disturbed environments ended, on average, reducing all ants in between -3.8 and -4.1%, and Ectatomma ruidum between -4.7 and -5.1%. We recommend bio-ecological aspects of the species under study be considered when interpreting results. This is important for future studies that rely on this method to deliver consistent estimates of population sizes or study their dynamics through time. At the same time, it is also a call for scientists to revise more carefully how species’ peculiar traits may limit the reliability of traditional methods.
Highlights
Pitfall trapping is one of the most frequently used methods to assess ground-active arthropods’ diversity and density (Brown & Matthews, 2016; Greenslade 1964; Southwood, 1978)
Jose M Martinez, Rubilma Tarazona, Bernhard L Lohr, Consuelo A Narvaez – The effect of long-term pitfall trapping on the prevalence of epigeal arthropods the taxonomic groups, numbers collected, and land use influence is available in Löhr and Narváez (2021)
Theory suggests epigeal pitfall trapping may significantly affect the populations of ground-active arthropods
Summary
Pitfall trapping is one of the most frequently used methods to assess ground-active arthropods’ diversity and density (Brown & Matthews, 2016; Greenslade 1964; Southwood, 1978). Despite the many complaints about the method and the voluminous literature about the subject, the possibility that repeated epigeal collecting may affect the population size of the study objects (Southwood, 1978) is a claim that has never been adequately tested. Greenslade (1973) and Joosse (1965) define a “diggingin effect” as the repeatedly found evidence of considerably larger captures right after pitfall traps have been installed when compared to the observed captures in subsequent catch counts.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.