Abstract
Abstract. When monitoring the activity and diversity of arthropods in protected areas it is ethically advisable to use non-destructive methods in order to avoid detrimental effects on natural populations and communities. The aim of this study was to compare the efficiency of three methods for potential use for arthropod monitoring in a protected grassland: pitfall trapping, quadrat sampling and video monitoring. Pitfall trapping was conducted either during the day or over night (cup diameter 6.5 cm, unfenced, without preservation fluid). Quadrat sampling was conducted within a metal frame (width × length × height: 50 × 50 × 30 cm). Video monitoring was done on a 68 × 37 cm area using a digital high-density video camera mounted on a tripod. The study site was located in a semi-dry grassland northwest of Vienna, Austria (305 m a.s.l., 48°27′ E, 16°34′ N); the three methods were replicated five times. Across the sampling methods a total of 24 arthropod orders were observed with Hymenoptera being the most abundant, followed by Diptera and Coleoptera. The sampling methods differed considerably in number of arthropods recorded: video monitoring (2578 individuals) followed by quadrat sampling (202 individuals), nocturnal (43 individuals) and diurnal pitfall trapping (12 individuals). Diversity of arthropod assemblages varied highly significantly among the tested methods with quadrat sampling yielding the highest diversity 0.70 ± 0.22 (Gini–Simpson index, mean ±SD) followed by video monitoring (0.57 ± 0.15), diurnal pitfall sampling (0.35 ± 0.28) and nocturnal pitfall sampling (0.17 ± 0.24). Video surveillance of the pitfall traps showed that out of a total of 151 individuals crawling in the vicinity of pitfall traps none of them were actually trapped. A tabular comparison listing the advantages and disadvantages of the sampling methods is presented. Taken together, our results suggest that video monitoring has a great potential as a supplementary method for quantitative and qualitative assessments of arthropod activity and diversity in grasslands.
Highlights
We found a total of 24 different arthropod taxa belonging to the orders Hymenoptera, Diptera, Arachnida, Coleoptera, Hemiptera, Orthoptera, other and unknown flying and crawling organisms (UFOs and UCOs respectively; Table 1)
The sampling methods differed significantly (P < 0.001) in their sampling efficiencies with highest total cumulative arthropod numbers observed by video monitoring (2578 individuals) followed by quadrate sampling
Arthropod assemblage collected with quadrat sampling was the most diverse (Gini–Simpson index, 0.70 ± 0.22, mean ±SD) followed by video monitoring
Summary
Monitoring the activity and diversity of arthropods often requires a certain amount of disturbance or even killing of the studied animals depending on the methods employed.ecologically sensitive and cost-effective monitoring techniques are required to assess whether conservation measures are sufficient, especially for protected areas (Work et al, 2002).One of the most often used technique to assess the activity and diversity of ground-dwelling arthropods is pitfall trapping (Barber, 1931) which has been utilized in various terrestrial ecosystems (e.g. Schmidt et al, 2006; Drapela et al, 2008; Zaller et al, 2009; Cheli and Corley, 2010; Schirmel et al, 2010; Matalin and Makarov, 2011; Frank et al, 2012; Hancock and Legg, 2012). Schmidt et al, 2006; Drapela et al, 2008; Zaller et al, 2009; Cheli and Corley, 2010; Schirmel et al, 2010; Matalin and Makarov, 2011; Frank et al, 2012; Hancock and Legg, 2012). This method is very attractive because it works when the observer is absent, it is very simple and inexpensive and it has been used in numerous studies
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
