Options for shorebird-exclusion devices for pitfall traps on sandy shores
M. Evans-Clay A , N. Porch A , G. S. Maguire B and M. A. Weston
A C
A School of Life and Environmental Sciences, Faculty of Science, Engineering and the Built Environment, Deakin University, 221 Burwood Highway, Burwood, Vic. 3125, Australia.
B BirdLife Australia, Suite 2-05, The Green Building, 60 Leicester Street, Carlton, Vic. 3053, Australia.
C Corresponding author. Email: mweston@deakin.edu.au
Wildlife Research 48(2) 175-180 https://doi.org/10.1071/WR20087
Submitted: 27 May 2020 Accepted: 28 July 2020 Published: 15 September 2020
Abstract
Context: Pitfall trapping is a standard technique for indexing surface active invertebrates on beaches, and underpins the study of sandy shore ecology. However, pitfall traps may pose a risk to the flightless young of beach-nesting birds, which may fall into such traps and potentially die.
Aim: The aim of the present study was to compare the invertebrates captured in standard pitfall traps with those captured in pitfall traps fitted with one of three potential shorebird exclusion devices. Ideally, the traps with exclusion devices would perform similarly to the standard traps (to enable inter-study comparability) and would detect ecological gradients, such as those evident in invertebrate assemblages between the beach and foredune.
Methods: A systematic array was deployed, using 64 pitfall traps of four types: three types with bird-exclusion devices (a mesh cover, a fence around the rim and a low roof); and a standard pitfall trap with no exclusion device. Pitfall traps were stratified across two habitat types (upper beach and foredune) and were simultaneously deployed to control for environmental and other variables.
Results: Each trap type was broadly comparable in terms of the assemblage of invertebrates recorded, with two exceptions: (1) there was a slightly lower species diversity in mesh than in roofed traps; and (2) the assemblage captured differed between roofed and fenced traps, with the former trapping more isopods and amphipods. No trap type differed from control traps, and all differentiated an ecological gradient between beach and foredune. Thus, any trap design option we tested met our criteria.
Conclusions and implications: The present study shows that bird-exclusion devices for pitfall traps need not compromise trap performance, comparability or utility.
Additional keywords: brood, chicks, food, foraging, infauna, invertebrates, prey.
References
Beachsafe (2020). Venus Bay, South Gippsland, Victoria. Available at https://beachsafe.org.au/beach/vic/south-gippsland/venus-bay/venus-bay [verified 1 April 2020].Brown, G. R., and Matthews, I. M. (2016). A review of extensive variation in the design of pitfall traps and a proposal for a standard pitfall trap design for monitoring ground-active arthropod biodiversity. Ecology and Evolution 6, 3953–3964.
| A review of extensive variation in the design of pitfall traps and a proposal for a standard pitfall trap design for monitoring ground-active arthropod biodiversity.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 27247760PubMed |
Bureau of Meteorology (2020). Climate history, Venus Bay. Available at http://www.meteorology.com.au/local-climate-history/vic/venus-bay [verified 1 April 2020].
Costa-Silva, V., Grella, M. D., and Thyssen, P. J. (2019). Optimized pitfall trap design for collecting terrestrial insects (Arthropoda: Insecta) in biodiversity studies. Neotropical Entomology 48, 50–56.
| Optimized pitfall trap design for collecting terrestrial insects (Arthropoda: Insecta) in biodiversity studies.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 29949122PubMed |
Cuttriss, A., Maguire, G. S., Ehmke, G., and Weston, M. A. (2015). Breeding habitat selection in an obligate beach bird: a test of the food resource hypothesis. Marine and Freshwater Research 66, 841–846.
| Breeding habitat selection in an obligate beach bird: a test of the food resource hypothesis.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Fanini, L., and Lowry, J. K. (2016). Comparing methods used in estimating biodiversity on sandy beaches: pitfall vs. quadrat sampling. Ecological Indicators 60, 358–366.
| Comparing methods used in estimating biodiversity on sandy beaches: pitfall vs. quadrat sampling.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Hathcock, C. D., and Fair, J. M. (2014). Hazards to birds from open metal pipes. Western North American Naturalist 74, 228–230.
| Hazards to birds from open metal pipes.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Hayes, W. B. (1970). The accuracy of pitfall trapping for the sand-beach isopod Tylos punctatus. Ecology 51, 514–516.
| The accuracy of pitfall trapping for the sand-beach isopod Tylos punctatus.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Lange, M., Gossner, M. M., and Weisser, W. W. (2011). Effect of pitfall trap type and diameter on vertebrate by-catches and ground beetle (Coleoptera: Carabidae) and spider (Araneae) sampling. Methods in Ecology and Evolution 2, 185–190.
| Effect of pitfall trap type and diameter on vertebrate by-catches and ground beetle (Coleoptera: Carabidae) and spider (Araneae) sampling.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Lees, D., Schmidt, T., Sherman, C. D. H., Maguire, G. S., Dann, P., Ehmke, G., and Weston, M. A. (2019). An assessment of radio telemetry for monitoring shorebird chick survival and causes of mortality. Wildlife Research 46, 622–627.
| An assessment of radio telemetry for monitoring shorebird chick survival and causes of mortality.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Machín, P., Fernández-Elipe, J., and Klaassen, R. H. (2018). The relative importance of food abundance and weather on the growth of a sub-arctic shorebird chick. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 72, 42.
| The relative importance of food abundance and weather on the growth of a sub-arctic shorebird chick.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Malo, J. E., de la Morena, E. L. G., Hervás, I., Mata, C., and Herranz, J. (2016). Uncapped tubular poles along high-speed railway lines act as pitfall traps for cavity nesting birds. European Journal of Wildlife Research 62, 483–489.
| Uncapped tubular poles along high-speed railway lines act as pitfall traps for cavity nesting birds.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
McLachlan, A., and Defeo, O. (2018). ‘The Ecology of Sandy Shores.’ (Academic Press, Elsevier: London, UK.)
Naylor, E., and Kennedy, F. (2003). Ontogeny of behavioural adaptations in beach crustaceans: some temporal considerations for integrated coastal zone management and conservation. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 58, 169–175.
| Ontogeny of behavioural adaptations in beach crustaceans: some temporal considerations for integrated coastal zone management and conservation.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Pearce, J. L., Schuurman, D., Barber, K. N., Larrivée, M., Venier, L. A., McKee, J., and McKenney, D. (2005). Pitfall trap designs to maximize invertebrate captures and minimize captures of nontarget vertebrates. Canadian Entomologist 137, 233–250.
| Pitfall trap designs to maximize invertebrate captures and minimize captures of nontarget vertebrates.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Roche, D., Lees, D., Cardilini, A., Maguire, G. S., Dann, P., and Weston, M. A. (2016). Pitfall trapping does not reliably index the diet or prey resources of masked lapwings. Wader Study 123, 16–20.
| Pitfall trapping does not reliably index the diet or prey resources of masked lapwings.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Schlacher, T. A., Carracher, L. K., Porch, N., Connolly, R. M., Olds, A. D., Gilby, B. L., Ekanayake, K. B., Maslo, B., and Weston, M. A. (2016). The early shorebird will catch fewer invertebrates on trampled sandy beaches. PLoS One 11, e0161905.
| The early shorebird will catch fewer invertebrates on trampled sandy beaches.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 27764164PubMed |
Thompson, S. A., and Thompson, G. G. (2008). Vertebrate by-catch in invertebrate wet pitfall traps. Journal of the Royal Society of Western Australia 91, 237–241.
Waldien, D. L., Cooley, M. M., Weikel, J., Hayes, J. P., Maguire, C. C., Manning, T., and Maier, T. J. (2004). Incidental captures of birds in small-mammal traps: a cautionary note for interdisciplinary studies. Wildlife Society Bulletin 32, 1260–1268.
| Incidental captures of birds in small-mammal traps: a cautionary note for interdisciplinary studies.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Weston, M. A. (2007). The foraging and diet of non-breeding hooded plover Thinornis rubricollis in relation to habitat type. Journal of the Royal Society of Western Australia 90, 89–95.
Weston, M. A., and Elgar, M. A. (2007). Responses of incubating hooded plovers (Thinornis rubricollis) to disturbance. Journal of Coastal Research 233, 569–576.
| Responses of incubating hooded plovers (Thinornis rubricollis) to disturbance.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Weston, M. A., Clarke, K., Maguire, G. S., and Sumner, J. (2020). Morphological and molecular evidence of population divergence in a widespread shorebird across its southern mainland Australian distribution. Conservation Genetics 21, 757–770.
| Morphological and molecular evidence of population divergence in a widespread shorebird across its southern mainland Australian distribution.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
