Influence of pit-trap type on the interpretation of fauna diversity
Scott A. Thompson A , Graham G. Thompson B D and Philip C. Withers CA ATA Environmental, Dilhorn House, 2 Bulwer Street, Perth, WA 6000, Australia.
B Centre for Ecosystem Management, Edith Cowan University, Joondalup, WA 6027, Australia.
C Zoology, School of Animal Biology, MO92, University of Western Australia, Crawley, WA 6009, Australia.
D Corresponding author. Email: g.thompson@ecu.edu.au
Wildlife Research 32(2) 131-137 https://doi.org/10.1071/WR03117
Submitted: 16 December 2003 Accepted: 10 November 2004 Published: 4 May 2005
Abstract
We compare bias in the interpretation of sampled reptile and mammal assemblages caught using 20-L PVC buckets and PVC pipes (150 mm by 600 mm deep) when used as pit-traps. We report on 16 632 pipe- and 16 632 bucket-nights of pit-trap data collected over 11 survey periods spread over 2.5 years around Ora Banda in Western Australia. Buckets caught more reptiles and more of the common ‘small’ and ‘medium’-sized reptiles, whereas pipes caught more mammals and the larger of the small trappable mammals. The trappability of some families of reptiles and some mammal species differs between buckets and pipes. We conclude that different pit-trap types provide a bias in the interpretation of the sampled fauna assemblage. Differences in the interpretation of vertebrate faunal diversity were accentuated by low trapping effort but attenuated by high trapping effort. We recommend that both buckets and pipes be employed as pit-traps during fauna surveys (as well as alternatives such as funnel traps) to more fully document fauna assemblages being surveyed.
Acknowledgments
This research was undertaken with ethics approval granted by Edith Cowan University and licences issued by the Department of Conservation and Land Management. This research was financially supported by OMG Cawse Nickel and Placer Dome Asia Pacific, Kalgoorlie West Operations, for which we are very appreciative.
Braithwaite, R. W. (1983). A comparison of two pitfall trap systems. Victorian Naturalist 100, 163–166.
Hobbs, T. , and James, C. D. (1999). Influence of shade covers on pitfall trap temperatures and capture success of reptiles and small mammals in arid Australia. Wildlife Research 26, 341–349.
Jorgensen, E. , Vogel, M. , and Demarais, S. (1998). A comparison of trap effectiveness for reptile sampling. Texas Journal of Science 50, 235–242.
Mengak, M. , and Guynn, D. C. J. (1978). Pitfalls and snap traps for sampling small mammals and herpetofauna. American Midland Naturalist 118, 284–288.
Menkhorst, P. W. (1982). Pitfall trapping of reptiles in the Big Desert, Victoria. Victorian Naturalist 99, 66–70.
Morton, S. R. , Gillam, M. W. , Jones, K. R. , and Fleming, M. R. (1988). Relative efficiency of different pit-trapping systems for sampling reptiles in spinifex grasslands. Australian Wildlife Research 15, 571–577.
Moseby, K. , and Read, J. L. (2001). Factors affecting pitfall capture rates of small ground vertebrates in arid South Australia. II. Optimum pitfall trapping effort. Wildlife Research 28, 61–71.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Read, J. L. (1992). Influence of habitats, climate, grazing and mining on terrestrial vertebrates at Olympic Dam, South Australia. Rangeland Journal 14, 143–156.
Rolfe, J. K. , and McKenzie, N. L. (2000 ). Comparison of methods used to capture herpetofauna: an example from the Carnarvon Basin. Records of the Western Australian Museum , 361–370.
Thompson, G. G. , and Withers, P. C. (2003). Species accumulation curves: the effect of species richness and relative abundance on the shape of the curve. Austral Ecology 28, 355–360.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Thompson, G. G. , Withers, P. C. , Pianka, E. R. , and Thompson, S. A. (2003). Assessing biodiversity with species accumulation curves. Austral Ecology 28, 361–383.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
