REFINING SAMPLING PROTOCOLS FOR INVENTORYING INVERTEBRATE BIODIVERSITY: INFLUENCE OF DRIFT-FENCE LENGTH AND PITFALL TRAP DIAMETER ON SPIDERS

The limited resources available to inventory biodiversity and conduct ecological monitoring requires efficient protocols for sampling with pitfall traps. Here we consider adding different length drift-fences to pitfall traps on spiders. Four different fencing treatments (no fence, or fence lengths o...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:The Journal of arachnology 2005-09, Vol.33 (3), p.681-702
Hauptverfasser: Brennan, Karl E. C., Majer, Jonathan D., Moir, Melinda L.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 702
container_issue 3
container_start_page 681
container_title The Journal of arachnology
container_volume 33
creator Brennan, Karl E. C.
Majer, Jonathan D.
Moir, Melinda L.
description The limited resources available to inventory biodiversity and conduct ecological monitoring requires efficient protocols for sampling with pitfall traps. Here we consider adding different length drift-fences to pitfall traps on spiders. Four different fencing treatments (no fence, or fence lengths of 2, 4 and 6 m) were evaluated in combination with three trap diameters (4.3, 7.0 and 11.1 cm). Three-way ANOVAs revealed no significant interaction effects between any combinations of fencing treatments, trap size or the spatial positioning of transects within the study site along which traps were arranged. Post-hoc tests showed fences significantly increased the abundance of individuals and richness of spider families, and species collected. Traps with 6 m fences were significantly higher in all of these variables than traps with 2 m fences. ANOSIMs revealed taxonomic composition differed significantly between fenced and unfenced traps at familial, and specific ranks. Among fenced traps, taxonomic composition was influenced primarily by trap diameter rather than fence length. ANOSIMs showed significant differences in taxonomic composition between each trap diameter for fenced traps. An optimal combination of fencing treatment and trap diameter was determined by constructing smoothed species accumulation curves for increasing numbers of traps. Four criteria were considered: equivalent numbers of traps, standardized cumulative trap circumference, standardized cumulative fence length (fenced traps only) and standardized cumulative handling time. For the same number of traps, 11.1 cm traps with 4 and 6 m fences collected the most species. At a standardized trap circumference, long fences were best, with all trap sizes catching similar numbers of species. When fence length was standardized, 11.1 cm traps with 2 or 4 m fences collected the most species. At a standardized handling time all traps caught very similar numbers of species, although most 11.1 cm diameter traps collected more species than other trap sizes and those with 4 m fences were most efficient. Given the similar performance of fenced and unfenced traps for standardized handling time, we outline reasons why unfenced traps may be best.
doi_str_mv 10.1636/M01-105.1
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>gale_smith</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_gale_infotracmisc_A162185396</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><galeid>A162185396</galeid><jstor_id>4129870</jstor_id><sourcerecordid>A162185396</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-b485t-fceba5f8e5c9d8304c064d083d2803ab5ca0da5542ecae7257bfd719239a4df43</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9UsFunDAQRVUrdZv20HsPlnqocmBrG1hMb2SBjSsWEDiVcrIMmK2j3SWyadT8Qz46pltVWimqfPC8eW-exuNxnI8ILtHKW33dQuQiGCzRK2eBIi90sRetXjsLiFbIJRjit847Y-6gxRiGC-epTjNa0GIDmnhb5XNQ1SUr12XegKysAS1-pAUr69uZmkHN0qs6Zim4omVCLW4ou_1mqSy_SYt1CsoMJDXNmJv9gXlabNg1iIsEVJRlcZ4DVscVSGi8TVlag7IATUUTa_TeeTOIvZEf_t4Xzk2WsvW1m5cbuo5zt_VJMLlDJ1sRDEQGXdQTD_odXPk9JF6PCfREG3QC9iIIfCw7IUMchO3QhyiyoxB-P_jehfP95GsOavppxqMSR96qsVcPUhs1PfIHzEehznJ71WqhH_mod_xe6IljTEgYWbPPJ7Od2EuujsM4adEdlOl4bIeMSGB_wKqWL6js6eVBdeNRDsrmzwouzwqsZpK_p534ZQynTf2ittOjMVoO_F6rw9wsgnxeC27XwsYBR1b76aS9M9Oo_wl9hCMSQkt_OdH26bar_xg9A-_QtgA</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype></control><display><type>article</type><title>REFINING SAMPLING PROTOCOLS FOR INVENTORYING INVERTEBRATE BIODIVERSITY: INFLUENCE OF DRIFT-FENCE LENGTH AND PITFALL TRAP DIAMETER ON SPIDERS</title><source>JSTOR</source><source>EZB Electronic Journals Library</source><source>BioOne Complete</source><creator>Brennan, Karl E. C. ; Majer, Jonathan D. ; Moir, Melinda L.</creator><creatorcontrib>Brennan, Karl E. C. ; Majer, Jonathan D. ; Moir, Melinda L.</creatorcontrib><description>The limited resources available to inventory biodiversity and conduct ecological monitoring requires efficient protocols for sampling with pitfall traps. Here we consider adding different length drift-fences to pitfall traps on spiders. Four different fencing treatments (no fence, or fence lengths of 2, 4 and 6 m) were evaluated in combination with three trap diameters (4.3, 7.0 and 11.1 cm). Three-way ANOVAs revealed no significant interaction effects between any combinations of fencing treatments, trap size or the spatial positioning of transects within the study site along which traps were arranged. Post-hoc tests showed fences significantly increased the abundance of individuals and richness of spider families, and species collected. Traps with 6 m fences were significantly higher in all of these variables than traps with 2 m fences. ANOSIMs revealed taxonomic composition differed significantly between fenced and unfenced traps at familial, and specific ranks. Among fenced traps, taxonomic composition was influenced primarily by trap diameter rather than fence length. ANOSIMs showed significant differences in taxonomic composition between each trap diameter for fenced traps. An optimal combination of fencing treatment and trap diameter was determined by constructing smoothed species accumulation curves for increasing numbers of traps. Four criteria were considered: equivalent numbers of traps, standardized cumulative trap circumference, standardized cumulative fence length (fenced traps only) and standardized cumulative handling time. For the same number of traps, 11.1 cm traps with 4 and 6 m fences collected the most species. At a standardized trap circumference, long fences were best, with all trap sizes catching similar numbers of species. When fence length was standardized, 11.1 cm traps with 2 or 4 m fences collected the most species. At a standardized handling time all traps caught very similar numbers of species, although most 11.1 cm diameter traps collected more species than other trap sizes and those with 4 m fences were most efficient. Given the similar performance of fenced and unfenced traps for standardized handling time, we outline reasons why unfenced traps may be best.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0161-8202</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1937-2396</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1636/M01-105.1</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>American Arachnological Society</publisher><subject>Animal traps ; Arthropods ; barriers ; Beetles ; Behavior ; Biodiversity ; Biodiversity conservation ; Biological diversity ; Datasets ; Featured s ; Fences ; Fencing ; guides ; Habitat conservation ; inventory ; sampling methods ; Species ; Spiders</subject><ispartof>The Journal of arachnology, 2005-09, Vol.33 (3), p.681-702</ispartof><rights>American Arachnological Society</rights><rights>COPYRIGHT 2005 The American Arachnological Society</rights><rights>In Copyright. Digitized with the permission of the rights holder https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-b485t-fceba5f8e5c9d8304c064d083d2803ab5ca0da5542ecae7257bfd719239a4df43</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-b485t-fceba5f8e5c9d8304c064d083d2803ab5ca0da5542ecae7257bfd719239a4df43</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://bioone.org/doi/pdf/10.1636/M01-105.1$$EPDF$$P50$$Gbioone$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/4129870$$EHTML$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,803,885,26976,27922,27923,52361,58015,58248</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Brennan, Karl E. C.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Majer, Jonathan D.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Moir, Melinda L.</creatorcontrib><title>REFINING SAMPLING PROTOCOLS FOR INVENTORYING INVERTEBRATE BIODIVERSITY: INFLUENCE OF DRIFT-FENCE LENGTH AND PITFALL TRAP DIAMETER ON SPIDERS</title><title>The Journal of arachnology</title><description>The limited resources available to inventory biodiversity and conduct ecological monitoring requires efficient protocols for sampling with pitfall traps. Here we consider adding different length drift-fences to pitfall traps on spiders. Four different fencing treatments (no fence, or fence lengths of 2, 4 and 6 m) were evaluated in combination with three trap diameters (4.3, 7.0 and 11.1 cm). Three-way ANOVAs revealed no significant interaction effects between any combinations of fencing treatments, trap size or the spatial positioning of transects within the study site along which traps were arranged. Post-hoc tests showed fences significantly increased the abundance of individuals and richness of spider families, and species collected. Traps with 6 m fences were significantly higher in all of these variables than traps with 2 m fences. ANOSIMs revealed taxonomic composition differed significantly between fenced and unfenced traps at familial, and specific ranks. Among fenced traps, taxonomic composition was influenced primarily by trap diameter rather than fence length. ANOSIMs showed significant differences in taxonomic composition between each trap diameter for fenced traps. An optimal combination of fencing treatment and trap diameter was determined by constructing smoothed species accumulation curves for increasing numbers of traps. Four criteria were considered: equivalent numbers of traps, standardized cumulative trap circumference, standardized cumulative fence length (fenced traps only) and standardized cumulative handling time. For the same number of traps, 11.1 cm traps with 4 and 6 m fences collected the most species. At a standardized trap circumference, long fences were best, with all trap sizes catching similar numbers of species. When fence length was standardized, 11.1 cm traps with 2 or 4 m fences collected the most species. At a standardized handling time all traps caught very similar numbers of species, although most 11.1 cm diameter traps collected more species than other trap sizes and those with 4 m fences were most efficient. Given the similar performance of fenced and unfenced traps for standardized handling time, we outline reasons why unfenced traps may be best.</description><subject>Animal traps</subject><subject>Arthropods</subject><subject>barriers</subject><subject>Beetles</subject><subject>Behavior</subject><subject>Biodiversity</subject><subject>Biodiversity conservation</subject><subject>Biological diversity</subject><subject>Datasets</subject><subject>Featured s</subject><subject>Fences</subject><subject>Fencing</subject><subject>guides</subject><subject>Habitat conservation</subject><subject>inventory</subject><subject>sampling methods</subject><subject>Species</subject><subject>Spiders</subject><issn>0161-8202</issn><issn>1937-2396</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2005</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>79B</sourceid><recordid>eNp9UsFunDAQRVUrdZv20HsPlnqocmBrG1hMb2SBjSsWEDiVcrIMmK2j3SWyadT8Qz46pltVWimqfPC8eW-exuNxnI8ILtHKW33dQuQiGCzRK2eBIi90sRetXjsLiFbIJRjit847Y-6gxRiGC-epTjNa0GIDmnhb5XNQ1SUr12XegKysAS1-pAUr69uZmkHN0qs6Zim4omVCLW4ou_1mqSy_SYt1CsoMJDXNmJv9gXlabNg1iIsEVJRlcZ4DVscVSGi8TVlag7IATUUTa_TeeTOIvZEf_t4Xzk2WsvW1m5cbuo5zt_VJMLlDJ1sRDEQGXdQTD_odXPk9JF6PCfREG3QC9iIIfCw7IUMchO3QhyiyoxB-P_jehfP95GsOavppxqMSR96qsVcPUhs1PfIHzEehznJ71WqhH_mod_xe6IljTEgYWbPPJ7Od2EuujsM4adEdlOl4bIeMSGB_wKqWL6js6eVBdeNRDsrmzwouzwqsZpK_p534ZQynTf2ittOjMVoO_F6rw9wsgnxeC27XwsYBR1b76aS9M9Oo_wl9hCMSQkt_OdH26bar_xg9A-_QtgA</recordid><startdate>20050901</startdate><enddate>20050901</enddate><creator>Brennan, Karl E. C.</creator><creator>Majer, Jonathan D.</creator><creator>Moir, Melinda L.</creator><general>American Arachnological Society</general><general>The American Arachnological Society</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>ISR</scope><scope>79B</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20050901</creationdate><title>REFINING SAMPLING PROTOCOLS FOR INVENTORYING INVERTEBRATE BIODIVERSITY: INFLUENCE OF DRIFT-FENCE LENGTH AND PITFALL TRAP DIAMETER ON SPIDERS</title><author>Brennan, Karl E. C. ; Majer, Jonathan D. ; Moir, Melinda L.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-b485t-fceba5f8e5c9d8304c064d083d2803ab5ca0da5542ecae7257bfd719239a4df43</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2005</creationdate><topic>Animal traps</topic><topic>Arthropods</topic><topic>barriers</topic><topic>Beetles</topic><topic>Behavior</topic><topic>Biodiversity</topic><topic>Biodiversity conservation</topic><topic>Biological diversity</topic><topic>Datasets</topic><topic>Featured s</topic><topic>Fences</topic><topic>Fencing</topic><topic>guides</topic><topic>Habitat conservation</topic><topic>inventory</topic><topic>sampling methods</topic><topic>Species</topic><topic>Spiders</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Brennan, Karl E. C.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Majer, Jonathan D.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Moir, Melinda L.</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Gale In Context: Science</collection><collection>Biodiversity Heritage Library</collection><jtitle>The Journal of arachnology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Brennan, Karl E. C.</au><au>Majer, Jonathan D.</au><au>Moir, Melinda L.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>REFINING SAMPLING PROTOCOLS FOR INVENTORYING INVERTEBRATE BIODIVERSITY: INFLUENCE OF DRIFT-FENCE LENGTH AND PITFALL TRAP DIAMETER ON SPIDERS</atitle><jtitle>The Journal of arachnology</jtitle><date>2005-09-01</date><risdate>2005</risdate><volume>33</volume><issue>3</issue><spage>681</spage><epage>702</epage><pages>681-702</pages><issn>0161-8202</issn><eissn>1937-2396</eissn><abstract>The limited resources available to inventory biodiversity and conduct ecological monitoring requires efficient protocols for sampling with pitfall traps. Here we consider adding different length drift-fences to pitfall traps on spiders. Four different fencing treatments (no fence, or fence lengths of 2, 4 and 6 m) were evaluated in combination with three trap diameters (4.3, 7.0 and 11.1 cm). Three-way ANOVAs revealed no significant interaction effects between any combinations of fencing treatments, trap size or the spatial positioning of transects within the study site along which traps were arranged. Post-hoc tests showed fences significantly increased the abundance of individuals and richness of spider families, and species collected. Traps with 6 m fences were significantly higher in all of these variables than traps with 2 m fences. ANOSIMs revealed taxonomic composition differed significantly between fenced and unfenced traps at familial, and specific ranks. Among fenced traps, taxonomic composition was influenced primarily by trap diameter rather than fence length. ANOSIMs showed significant differences in taxonomic composition between each trap diameter for fenced traps. An optimal combination of fencing treatment and trap diameter was determined by constructing smoothed species accumulation curves for increasing numbers of traps. Four criteria were considered: equivalent numbers of traps, standardized cumulative trap circumference, standardized cumulative fence length (fenced traps only) and standardized cumulative handling time. For the same number of traps, 11.1 cm traps with 4 and 6 m fences collected the most species. At a standardized trap circumference, long fences were best, with all trap sizes catching similar numbers of species. When fence length was standardized, 11.1 cm traps with 2 or 4 m fences collected the most species. At a standardized handling time all traps caught very similar numbers of species, although most 11.1 cm diameter traps collected more species than other trap sizes and those with 4 m fences were most efficient. Given the similar performance of fenced and unfenced traps for standardized handling time, we outline reasons why unfenced traps may be best.</abstract><pub>American Arachnological Society</pub><doi>10.1636/M01-105.1</doi><tpages>22</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0161-8202
ispartof The Journal of arachnology, 2005-09, Vol.33 (3), p.681-702
issn 0161-8202
1937-2396
language eng
recordid cdi_gale_infotracmisc_A162185396
source JSTOR; EZB Electronic Journals Library; BioOne Complete
subjects Animal traps
Arthropods
barriers
Beetles
Behavior
Biodiversity
Biodiversity conservation
Biological diversity
Datasets
Featured s
Fences
Fencing
guides
Habitat conservation
inventory
sampling methods
Species
Spiders
title REFINING SAMPLING PROTOCOLS FOR INVENTORYING INVERTEBRATE BIODIVERSITY: INFLUENCE OF DRIFT-FENCE LENGTH AND PITFALL TRAP DIAMETER ON SPIDERS
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-14T15%3A36%3A41IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-gale_smith&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=REFINING%20SAMPLING%20PROTOCOLS%20FOR%20INVENTORYING%20INVERTEBRATE%20BIODIVERSITY:%20INFLUENCE%20OF%20DRIFT-FENCE%20LENGTH%20AND%20PITFALL%20TRAP%20DIAMETER%20ON%20SPIDERS&rft.jtitle=The%20Journal%20of%20arachnology&rft.au=Brennan,%20Karl%20E.%20C.&rft.date=2005-09-01&rft.volume=33&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=681&rft.epage=702&rft.pages=681-702&rft.issn=0161-8202&rft.eissn=1937-2396&rft_id=info:doi/10.1636/M01-105.1&rft_dat=%3Cgale_smith%3EA162185396%3C/gale_smith%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_galeid=A162185396&rft_jstor_id=4129870&rfr_iscdi=true