ISSN:
1572-9753
Keywords:
spider
;
pitfall traps
;
sampling methods
;
biodiversity
;
invertebrates
Source:
Springer Online Journal Archives 1860-2000
Topics:
Biology
,
Nature of Science, Research, Systems of Higher Education, Museum Science
Notes:
Abstract Pitfall trapping is a sampling technique extensively used to sample surface foraging invertebrates for biological diversity studies and ecological monitoring. To date, very few invertebrate studies have considered what trap size is optimal for sampling spiders. This study presents preliminary findings from a single short sampling period on the role of trap size in sampling spiders in a Western Australian Jarrah forest. Four different trap diameters (4.3, 7.0, 11.1 and 17.4 cm) were examined (4 trap sizes × 15 replicates = 60 traps). Two-way ANOVAs revealed no significant interaction effects between trap size or the spatial positioning of transects within the study site along which the pitfall traps were arranged. Post-hoc tests revealed abundance, family richness and species richness increased with increasing trap sizes for traps ≥7.0 cm. No significant differences in these dependent variables occurred between 4.3 and 7.0 cm traps, or for species richness between 11.1 and 17.4 cm traps. Determination of an optimal trap size was undertaken by bootstrapping and calculating species accumulation curves for increasing numbers of traps used. Three different criteria were considered: equivalent number of traps (15), standardized sampling intensity (cumulative trap circumference, approximately 207 cm) and standardized cumulative handling time (approximately 1 hour 17 minutes). The largest trap size (17.4 cm) was most efficient in terms of number of traps and trap circumference. For the same number of traps, it caught 19 species whereas all other trap sizes caught ≤ten species. At the standardized circumference, it caught seven species whereas all other trap sizes caught five. For handling time, however, the two largest trap sizes (17.4 and 11.1 cm) were optimal. Both caught nine species whereas all other traps caught 〈eight. These results suggest the largest trap size was optimal. Given that the 11.1 cm trap performed similarly with respect to handling time, however, we tentatively considered this size most appropriate owing to an ethical consideration – smaller trap sizes may decrease the potential for capture of non-target species.
Type of Medium:
Electronic Resource
URL:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1009682527012
Permalink
