Time‐lapse camera trapping as an alternative to pitfall trapping for estimating activity of leaf litter arthropods

Rachael A. Collett; Diana O. Fisher

doi:10.1002/ece3.3275

journal article Open Access Aug 14, 2017

Time‐lapse camera trapping as an alternative to pitfall trapping for estimating activity of leaf litter arthropods

Rachael A. Collett

Diana O. Fisher

Ecology and Evolution Vol. 7 No. 18 pp. 7527-7533 · Wiley

View at Publisher Save 10.1002/ece3.3275

Abstract

AbstractPitfall trapping is the standard technique to estimate activity and relative abundance of leaf litter arthropods. Pitfall trapping is not ideal for long‐term sampling because it is lethal, labor‐intensive, and may have taxonomic sampling biases. We test an alternative sampling method that can be left in place for several months at a time: verticallyplaced time‐lapse camera traps that have a short focal distance, enabling identification of small arthropods. We tested the effectiveness of these time‐lapse cameras, and quantified escape and avoidance behavior of arthropod orders encountering pitfall traps by placing cameras programed with a range of sampling intervals above pitfalls, to assess numerical, taxonomic, and body size differences in samples collected by the two methods. Cameras programed with 1‐ or 15‐min intervals recorded around twice as many arthropod taxa per day and a third more individuals per day than pitfall traps. Hymenoptera (ants), Embioptera (webspinners), and Blattodea (cockroaches) frequently escaped from pitfalls so were particularly under‐sampled by them. The time‐lapse camera method effectively samples litter arthropods to collect long‐term data. It is standardized, non‐lethal, and does not alter the substrate or require frequent visits.

Topics

No keywords indexed for this article. Browse by subject →

References

48

[1]

10.1016/0020-7322(74)90026-9

[2]

10.1007/bf00344835

[3]

10.1016/j.jaridenv.2006.08.005

[4]

10.1111/j.1570-7458.2009.00902.x

[5]

Buckland S. T. (1993)

[6]

10.1016/s0167-8809(97)00055-8

[7]

10.1016/0378-1127(95)03560-w

[8]

10.1071/wr10046

[9]

10.2307/1941006

[10]

Digweed S. C. "Digging out the” digging‐in effect” of pitfall traps: Influences of depletion and disturbance on catches of ground beetles (Coleoptera: Carabidae)" Pedobiologia (1995) 10.1016/s0031-4056(24)00225-7

[11]

10.1126/science.1251817

[12]

10.1016/j.agee.2009.09.002

[13]

10.1111/j.0307-6946.2005.00666.x

[14]

10.2307/1939944

[15]

10.1006/jare.1993.1072

[16]

10.1073/pnas.1310691110

[17]

Sampling ants with pitfall traps: Digging-in effects

P. J. M. Greenslade

Insectes Sociaux 10.1007/bf02226087

[18]

10.1111/j.1365-2311.1988.tb00359.x

[19]

10.1046/j.1570-7458.1999.00501.x

[20]

10.1016/s0272-7714(03)00049-0

[21]

Kliewe V. "An electronically controlled time‐trap for diurnal activity studies of soil arthropods" Beitraege zur Entomologie (1998)

[22]

10.1016/s0167-8809(99)00037-7

[23]

Lang A. "The pitfalls of pitfalls: A comparison of pitfall trap catches and absolute density estimates of epigeal invertebrate predators in arable land" Anzeiger Fur Schadlingskunde (2000) 10.1007/bf02956438

[24]

10.1111/j.2041-210x.2010.00062.x

[25]

10.1038/34166

[26]

10.1146/annurev.en.41.010196.001311

[27]

10.1007/bf00348110

[28]

10.1080/08927014.2001.9522780

[29]

10.1139/z2012-064

[30]

Recommended guiding principles for reporting on camera trapping research

P. D. Meek, G. Ballard, A. Claridge et al.

Biodiversity and Conservation 10.1007/s10531-014-0712-8

[31]

10.1046/j.1442-9993.1999.00967.x

[32]

10.1006/bcon.1997.0516

[33]

10.1078/0031-4056-00158

[34]

Pollock K. H. "Statistical inference for capture‐recapture experiments" Wildlife Monographs (1990)

[35]

Ross E. S. "EMBIA: Contributions to the biosystematics of the insect order Embiidina, part 1" Occasional Papers of the California Academy of Sciences (2000)

[36]

Rovero F. "Which camera trap type and how many do I need? A review of camera features and study designs for a range of wildlife research applications" Hystrix, The Italian Journal of Mammology (2013)

[37]

10.1016/j.ejsobi.2006.10.001

[38]

10.1111/j.1570-7458.2010.01020.x

[39]

10.1636/t04-95.1

[40]

10.13031/2013.27653

[41]

10.1002/rse2.2

[42]

10.4039/ent126881-3

[43]

10.1665/1082-6467(2007)16[77:ldatsp]2.0.co;2

[44]

Topping C. "Three factors affecting the pitfall trap catch of linyphiid spiders(Araneae: Linyphiidae)" Bulletin of the British Arachnological Society (1995)

[45]

Topping C. "Limitations to the use of pitfall traps in ecological studies exemplified by a study of spiders in a field of winter wheat" Journal of Arachnology (1992)

[46]

Modern Applied Statistics with S

W. N. Venables, B. D. Ripley

Statistics and Computing 10.1007/978-0-387-21706-2

[47]

10.1071/wr08069

[48]

10.1111/2041-210x.12083

Metrics

45

Citations

48

References

Details

Published: Aug 14, 2017
Vol/Issue: 7(18)
Pages: 7527-7533
License: View

Authors

R

Rachael A. Collett

School of Biological Sciences The University of Queensland St Lucia QLD Australia

D

Diana O. Fisher

School of Biological Sciences The University of Queensland St Lucia QLD Australia

Funding

Australian Research Council Fellowship Award: FTll0100191

Australian Government's National Environmental Science Programme - Threatened Species Recovery Hub

Cite This Article

Rachael A. Collett, Diana O. Fisher (2017). Time‐lapse camera trapping as an alternative to pitfall trapping for estimating activity of leaf litter arthropods. Ecology and Evolution, 7(18), 7527-7533. https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.3275

Time‐lapse camera trapping as an alternative to pitfall trapping for estimating activity of leaf litter arthropods

You May Also Like