Pitfall trap

Last updated
A Barber pitfall trap, designed to catch small epigeic animals, particular arthropods Barber pitfall trap.jpg
A Barber pitfall trap, designed to catch small epigeic animals, particular arthropods

A pitfall trap is a trapping pit for small animals, such as insects, amphibians and reptiles. Pitfall traps are a sampling technique, mainly used for ecology studies and ecologic pest control. [1] Animals that enter a pitfall trap are unable to escape. This is a form of passive collection, as opposed to active collection where the collector catches each animal (by hand or with a device such as a butterfly net). Active collection may be difficult or time-consuming, especially in habitats where it is hard to see the animals such as in thick grass.

Contents

Structure and composition

Wet pitfall trap for insects, with its lid raised on stones Beetle pitfall trap with stones.png
Wet pitfall trap for insects, with its lid raised on stones

Pitfall traps come in a variety of sizes and designs. They come in two main forms: dry and wet pitfall traps. Dry pitfall traps consist of a container (tin, jar or drum) buried in the ground with its rim at surface level used to trap mobile animals that fall into it. Wet pitfall traps are basically the same, but contain a solution designed to kill and preserve the trapped animals. The fluids that can be used in these traps include formalin (10% formaldehyde), methylated spirits, alcohol, ethylene glycol, trisodium phosphate, picric acid or even (with daily checked traps) plain water. A little detergent is usually added to break the surface tension of the liquid to promote quick drowning. The opening is usually covered by a sloped stone or lid or some other object. This is done to reduce the amount of rain and debris entering the trap, and to prevent animals in dry traps from drowning (when it rains) or overheating (during the day) as well as to keep out predators.

Traps may also be baited. Lures or baits of varying specificity can be used to increase the capture rate of a certain target species or group by placing them in, above or near the trap. Examples of baits include meat, dung, fruit and pheromones.

Some designs include fence-lines sometimes called guidance barriers [2] or drift-fences [3] which are small fences that funnel the target organisms towards the trap, resulting in a significantly higher species richness compared with designs without. [2]

Disturbing the soil in an area can have an effect on the activity of ground dwelling arthropods in an area, so sometimes a rim-plate is attached to the trap container which allows the trap to be swapped out easier and avoids the effects of disturbing the soil. [2]

Trap design has a significant impact on the taxa represented in the sample, and designs used are highly variable between studies, making comparisons difficult. [4]

Uses

Pitfall traps can be used for various purposes:

Disadvantages of pitfalls

There are inevitably biases in pitfall sampling when it comes to comparison of different groups of animals and different habitats in which the trapping occurs. An animal's trappability depends on the structure of its habitat (e.g. density of vegetation, type of substrate). Gullan and Cranston (2005) recommend measuring and controlling for such variations.

Intrinsic properties of the animal itself also affect its trappability: some taxa are more active than others (e.g. higher physiological activity or ranging over a wider area), more likely to avoid the trap, less likely to be found on the ground (e.g. tree-dwelling species that occasionally move across the terrain), or too large to be trapped (or large enough to escape if trapped). Trappability can also be affected by conditions such as temperature or rain, which may alter the animal's behaviour. The capture rate is therefore proportional not only to how abundant a given type of animal is (which is often the factor of interest), but how easily they are trapped. Comparisons between different groups must therefore take into account variation in habitat structure and complexity, changes in ecological conditions over time and the innate differences in species. [7]

See also

References

  1. Pitfall traps description
  2. 1 2 3 Boetzl, Fabian A.; Ries, Elena; Schneider, Gudrun; Krauss, Jochen (2018-06-25). "It's a matter of design—how pitfall trap design affects trap samples and possible predictions". PeerJ. 6 e5078. doi: 10.7717/peerj.5078 . ISSN   2167-8359. PMC   6022721 . PMID   29967739.
  3. Ellis, M.V. (2013). "Impacts of pit size, drift fence material and fence configuration on capture rates of small reptiles and mammals in the New South Wales rangelands". Australian Zoologist. 36 (4): 404–412. doi: 10.7882/AZ.2013.005 .
  4. Brown, Grant R.; Matthews, Iain M. (June 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 (12): 3953–3964. Bibcode:2016EcoEv...6.3953B. doi:10.1002/ece3.2176. ISSN   2045-7758. PMC   4867678 . PMID   27247760.
  5. Marsh, Charles J.; Louzada, Julio; Beiroz, Wallace; Ewers, Robert M. (2013-08-30). "Optimising Bait for Pitfall Trapping of Amazonian Dung Beetles (Coleoptera: Scarabaeinae)". PLOS ONE. 8 (8) e73147. Bibcode:2013PLoSO...873147M. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0073147 . ISSN   1932-6203. PMC   3758266 . PMID   24023675.
  6. Lettink, M; Monks, JM (2016-01-02). "Survey and monitoring methods for New Zealand lizards". Journal of the Royal Society of New Zealand. 46 (1): 16–28. doi:10.1080/03036758.2015.1108343. ISSN   0303-6758.
  7. Ellis, M. V.; Bedward, M. (2014). "A simulation study to quantify drift fence configuration and spacing effects when sampling mobile animals". Ecosphere. 5 (5): art55. Bibcode:2014Ecosp...5...55E. doi: 10.1890/ES14-00078.1 .

Further reading