Eficiência de armadilhas de queda (pitfall traps) em amostragens de anfíbios e répteis no Brasil

By Sonia Zanini Cechin, M. Martins. 2000

224 citations recorded by the source corpus.

The effectiveness of pitfall traps associated with drift fences to capture amphibians and reptiles in three field studies, in Rio Grande do Sul (extreme southern Brazil), Sao Paulo (Sao Paulo, southeastern Brazil), and Amazonas (Amazonas, northern Brazil) is described. At Santa Maria, a total of 2040 amphibians and reptiles were caught in 30 pitfalls (200 L, with drift fence) during 18 months of study (capture efficiencies of 3.78 amphibians and reptiles/pitfall/month and 0.14 snake/pitfall/month). At Itirapina, Sao Paulo, 1262 amphibians and reptiles were obtained in 72 pitfalls (100 L, with drift fence) during six months (capture efficiencies of 11,9 amphibians and reptiles/pitfall/month and 0,38 snake/pitfall/month). At Rio Pitinga, Amazonas, over 600 amphibians and reptiles were caught in 50 pitfalls (100-150 L, with drift fence) during three months (capture efficiencies of ca. 4.00 amphibians and reptiles/pitfall/month and 0.87 snake/pitfall/month). Capture efficiencies of 1.25 to ~3.92 amphibians and reptiles/pitfall/month were obtained in four other unpublished studies made by other authors in Brazil, all of them using 20-35 L traps, either with or without drift fences. Higher capture efficiencies for snakes were obtained in those studies in which larger containers (100-200 L) were used. The results presented here indicate that pitfall traps are extremely useful to sample amphibians and reptiles in Brazil, especially anurans and lizards. From these results, it is possible to preview the capture of 125 to 1200 amphibians and reptiles with 100 pitfalls during one month, regardless of the size of the pitfalls and sampling design of the trap arrays. The main advantages and disadvantages of the method and detailed guidelines on how to design, install, and use the traps is discussed.

Subfields: Nature and Landscape Conservation

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/df243fa08befd32278b8c1c5b48331fdaa18b1f2

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Nature and Landscape Conservation

Citations in the corpus

Composition and natural history of a Cerrado snake assemblage at Itirapina, São Paulo state, southeastern Brazil (2008, methodology): “It was attached to wooden stakes, and installed passing 10 cm depth from the top border of each bucket (see Figure 1 of Cechin & Martins 2000).”
Ferns, frogs, lizards, birds and bats in forest fragments and shade cacao plantations in two contrasting landscapes in the Atlantic forest, Brazil (2007, background): “Frog and lizard sampling Leaf litter frogs and lizards were sampled with pitfall traps and drift fences (Cechin and Martins 2000), with marking and release of animals.”
Evaluating the Effectiveness of Herpetofaunal Sampling Techniques across a Gradient of Habitat Change in a Tropical Forest Landscape (2008, background): “Cechin and Martins (2000) compared the efficiency of pitfall traps composed of larger buckets (100–200 liter) with previous studies that employed more traditional sized traps (20–35 liter) and concluded that large traps are highly efficient for sampling herpetofaunal communities.”
A SNAKE COMMUNITY AT ESPIGÃO DO OESTE, RONDÔNIA, SOUTHWESTERN AMAZON, BRAZIL (2006, methodology): “2) Pitfall traps with drift fences (Fitch, 1987; Cechin and Martins, 2000): in this method, plastic buckets (200 L) were buried every 10 meters and connected by a 1 m high plastic fence.”
Herpetofauna de serrapilheira da Reserva Florestal de Morro Grande, Cotia (SP) (2006, background): “O levantamento da herpetofauna de serrapilheira foi realizado através do uso de armadilhas de interceptação e queda (“pitfall traps”, Corn 1994, Cechin & Martins 2000).”
EVALUATING THE EFFICIENCY OF PITFALL TRAPS FOR SAMPLING SMALL MAMMALS IN THE NEOTROPICS (2006, background): “The smaller the trap, the higher the probability of escape of larger species or of species that are able to jump or climb, as documented for herpetofaunal sampling (Cechin and Martins 2000; Corn 1994).”