Comparison of footprint tracking and pitfall trapping for detecting skinks
Inventory and monitoring of biodiversity requires effective sampling tools. Footprint tracking tunnels, developed in New Zealand to monitor small mammals, may also be useful for sampling lizards and other reptiles but more research is needed to verify this. To that end, we compared the detectability...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | New Zealand journal of ecology 2022-01, Vol.46 (2), p.1-5 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 5 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 2 |
| container_start_page | 1 |
| container_title | New Zealand journal of ecology |
| container_volume | 46 |
| creator | Lettink, Marieke Young, Jim Monks, Joanne M. |
| description | Inventory and monitoring of biodiversity requires effective sampling tools. Footprint tracking tunnels, developed in New Zealand to monitor small mammals, may also be useful for sampling lizards and other reptiles but more research is needed to verify this. To that end, we compared the detectability of terrestrial skinks using two methods: pitfall trapping and footprint tracking. In New Zealand, the former is the traditional method for sampling skinks, while the latter is routinely used to monitor populations of introduced rodents and mustelids. In January 2019, we operated paired grids containing 5 × 5 arrays of pitfall traps and standard rodent tracking tunnels on Tiwai Peninsula in Southland, South Island, and compared the daily proportions of traps and tunnels that detected skinks via captures and footprints, respectively. Overall, tracking tunnels were approximately twice as likely to detect skinks as pitfall traps. Additional research is required to: (1) test the relative efficacy of footprint tracking versus conventional detection methods on other lizard and reptile species; (2) investigate alternative tunnel designs and long-life lures; and, (3) calibrate footprint tracking rates against density estimates to assess suitability for monitoring. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.20417/nzjecol.46.24 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>jstor_proqu</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_2684617035</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><jstor_id>48697164</jstor_id><sourcerecordid>48697164</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c357t-29e1af54f607732b5b2b47a175b930c68fec8f0a48ef88c29af4347f8a8e57453</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNpFkE1LAzEYhIMoWKtXb8KC513ztfk4StGqFLzoOWTTRHa7TdYkBe2vd9cWPQ0zPMzLOwBcI1hhSBG_8_vOmtBXlFWYnoAZQpyXnAtxCmYQIVgyyupzcJFSByERiJAZeFmE7aBjm4IvgitcCHmIrc9FjtpsWv9RaL8uhjY73fdTOAxT6EIs1jZbkyeXRnCTLsHZCCV7ddQ5eH98eFs8lavX5fPiflUaUvNcYmmRdjV1DHJOcFM3uKFcI143kkDDhLNGOKipsE4Ig6V2lFDuhBa25rQmc3B76B1i-NzZlFUXdtGPJxVmgjLEIZmo6kCZGFKK1qnxr62O3wpB9buXOu6lKFOY_tf63u9V69f2a1QpJWIIEikhFoSP1M2B6lIO8a-TCiY5YpT8AOg9dGI</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2684617035</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Comparison of footprint tracking and pitfall trapping for detecting skinks</title><source>Index New Zealand (Open Access)</source><source>Jstor Complete Legacy</source><source>Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals</source><source>Alma/SFX Local Collection</source><creator>Lettink, Marieke ; Young, Jim ; Monks, Joanne M.</creator><creatorcontrib>Lettink, Marieke ; Young, Jim ; Monks, Joanne M. ; Fauna Finders, 20 Days Road, Lyttelton 8082, Christchurch, New Zealand</creatorcontrib><description>Inventory and monitoring of biodiversity requires effective sampling tools. Footprint tracking tunnels, developed in New Zealand to monitor small mammals, may also be useful for sampling lizards and other reptiles but more research is needed to verify this. To that end, we compared the detectability of terrestrial skinks using two methods: pitfall trapping and footprint tracking. In New Zealand, the former is the traditional method for sampling skinks, while the latter is routinely used to monitor populations of introduced rodents and mustelids. In January 2019, we operated paired grids containing 5 × 5 arrays of pitfall traps and standard rodent tracking tunnels on Tiwai Peninsula in Southland, South Island, and compared the daily proportions of traps and tunnels that detected skinks via captures and footprints, respectively. Overall, tracking tunnels were approximately twice as likely to detect skinks as pitfall traps. Additional research is required to: (1) test the relative efficacy of footprint tracking versus conventional detection methods on other lizard and reptile species; (2) investigate alternative tunnel designs and long-life lures; and, (3) calibrate footprint tracking rates against density estimates to assess suitability for monitoring.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0110-6465</identifier><identifier>ISSN: 1177-7788</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1177-7788</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.20417/nzjecol.46.24</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Christchurch: New Zealand Ecological Society</publisher><subject>Animal tracks ; Biodiversity ; Footprints ; Lizards ; Methods ; Monitoring ; Pitfall traps ; R&D ; Rain ; Reptiles ; Reptiles & amphibians ; Research & development ; Rodents ; Sampling ; Skink trapping ; Skinks ; Small mammals ; Tracking ; Tracking and trailing ; Trapping ; Tunnels</subject><ispartof>New Zealand journal of ecology, 2022-01, Vol.46 (2), p.1-5</ispartof><rights>2022 New Zealand Ecological Society</rights><rights>Copyright New Zealand Ecological Society 2022</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c357t-29e1af54f607732b5b2b47a175b930c68fec8f0a48ef88c29af4347f8a8e57453</citedby><orcidid>0000-0002-7923-6619 ; 0000-0001-9391-380X ; 0000-0002-4314-3007</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/48697164$$EPDF$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/48697164$$EHTML$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,799,25926,27901,27902,57992,58225</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://natlib-primo.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/primo-explore/search?query=any,contains,999161039902837&tab=innz&search_scope=INNZ&vid=NLNZ&offset=0$$DView this record in NLNZ$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Lettink, Marieke</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Young, Jim</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Monks, Joanne M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Fauna Finders, 20 Days Road, Lyttelton 8082, Christchurch, New Zealand</creatorcontrib><title>Comparison of footprint tracking and pitfall trapping for detecting skinks</title><title>New Zealand journal of ecology</title><description>Inventory and monitoring of biodiversity requires effective sampling tools. Footprint tracking tunnels, developed in New Zealand to monitor small mammals, may also be useful for sampling lizards and other reptiles but more research is needed to verify this. To that end, we compared the detectability of terrestrial skinks using two methods: pitfall trapping and footprint tracking. In New Zealand, the former is the traditional method for sampling skinks, while the latter is routinely used to monitor populations of introduced rodents and mustelids. In January 2019, we operated paired grids containing 5 × 5 arrays of pitfall traps and standard rodent tracking tunnels on Tiwai Peninsula in Southland, South Island, and compared the daily proportions of traps and tunnels that detected skinks via captures and footprints, respectively. Overall, tracking tunnels were approximately twice as likely to detect skinks as pitfall traps. Additional research is required to: (1) test the relative efficacy of footprint tracking versus conventional detection methods on other lizard and reptile species; (2) investigate alternative tunnel designs and long-life lures; and, (3) calibrate footprint tracking rates against density estimates to assess suitability for monitoring.</description><subject>Animal tracks</subject><subject>Biodiversity</subject><subject>Footprints</subject><subject>Lizards</subject><subject>Methods</subject><subject>Monitoring</subject><subject>Pitfall traps</subject><subject>R&D</subject><subject>Rain</subject><subject>Reptiles</subject><subject>Reptiles & amphibians</subject><subject>Research & development</subject><subject>Rodents</subject><subject>Sampling</subject><subject>Skink trapping</subject><subject>Skinks</subject><subject>Small mammals</subject><subject>Tracking</subject><subject>Tracking and trailing</subject><subject>Trapping</subject><subject>Tunnels</subject><issn>0110-6465</issn><issn>1177-7788</issn><issn>1177-7788</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2022</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>LETOP</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><recordid>eNpFkE1LAzEYhIMoWKtXb8KC513ztfk4StGqFLzoOWTTRHa7TdYkBe2vd9cWPQ0zPMzLOwBcI1hhSBG_8_vOmtBXlFWYnoAZQpyXnAtxCmYQIVgyyupzcJFSByERiJAZeFmE7aBjm4IvgitcCHmIrc9FjtpsWv9RaL8uhjY73fdTOAxT6EIs1jZbkyeXRnCTLsHZCCV7ddQ5eH98eFs8lavX5fPiflUaUvNcYmmRdjV1DHJOcFM3uKFcI143kkDDhLNGOKipsE4Ig6V2lFDuhBa25rQmc3B76B1i-NzZlFUXdtGPJxVmgjLEIZmo6kCZGFKK1qnxr62O3wpB9buXOu6lKFOY_tf63u9V69f2a1QpJWIIEikhFoSP1M2B6lIO8a-TCiY5YpT8AOg9dGI</recordid><startdate>20220101</startdate><enddate>20220101</enddate><creator>Lettink, Marieke</creator><creator>Young, Jim</creator><creator>Monks, Joanne M.</creator><general>New Zealand Ecological Society</general><scope>GOM</scope><scope>LETOP</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7SN</scope><scope>7SS</scope><scope>7U7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88A</scope><scope>88I</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AEUYN</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ATCPS</scope><scope>AYAGU</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BBNVY</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>BKSAR</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>LK8</scope><scope>M2P</scope><scope>M7P</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>PATMY</scope><scope>PCBAR</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PYCSY</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>RC3</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7923-6619</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9391-380X</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4314-3007</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20220101</creationdate><title>Comparison of footprint tracking and pitfall trapping for detecting skinks</title><author>Lettink, Marieke ; Young, Jim ; Monks, Joanne M.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c357t-29e1af54f607732b5b2b47a175b930c68fec8f0a48ef88c29af4347f8a8e57453</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2022</creationdate><topic>Animal tracks</topic><topic>Biodiversity</topic><topic>Footprints</topic><topic>Lizards</topic><topic>Methods</topic><topic>Monitoring</topic><topic>Pitfall traps</topic><topic>R&D</topic><topic>Rain</topic><topic>Reptiles</topic><topic>Reptiles & amphibians</topic><topic>Research & development</topic><topic>Rodents</topic><topic>Sampling</topic><topic>Skink trapping</topic><topic>Skinks</topic><topic>Small mammals</topic><topic>Tracking</topic><topic>Tracking and trailing</topic><topic>Trapping</topic><topic>Tunnels</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Lettink, Marieke</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Young, Jim</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Monks, Joanne M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Fauna Finders, 20 Days Road, Lyttelton 8082, Christchurch, New Zealand</creatorcontrib><collection>Index New Zealand</collection><collection>Index New Zealand (Open Access)</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Ecology Abstracts</collection><collection>Entomology Abstracts (Full archive)</collection><collection>Toxicology Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Biology Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Science Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Sustainability</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Agricultural & Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>Australia & New Zealand Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Earth, Atmospheric & Aquatic Science Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>Science Database</collection><collection>Biological Science Database</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Environmental Science Database</collection><collection>Earth, Atmospheric & Aquatic Science Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>Genetics Abstracts</collection><jtitle>New Zealand journal of ecology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Lettink, Marieke</au><au>Young, Jim</au><au>Monks, Joanne M.</au><aucorp>Fauna Finders, 20 Days Road, Lyttelton 8082, Christchurch, New Zealand</aucorp><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Comparison of footprint tracking and pitfall trapping for detecting skinks</atitle><jtitle>New Zealand journal of ecology</jtitle><date>2022-01-01</date><risdate>2022</risdate><volume>46</volume><issue>2</issue><spage>1</spage><epage>5</epage><pages>1-5</pages><issn>0110-6465</issn><issn>1177-7788</issn><eissn>1177-7788</eissn><abstract>Inventory and monitoring of biodiversity requires effective sampling tools. Footprint tracking tunnels, developed in New Zealand to monitor small mammals, may also be useful for sampling lizards and other reptiles but more research is needed to verify this. To that end, we compared the detectability of terrestrial skinks using two methods: pitfall trapping and footprint tracking. In New Zealand, the former is the traditional method for sampling skinks, while the latter is routinely used to monitor populations of introduced rodents and mustelids. In January 2019, we operated paired grids containing 5 × 5 arrays of pitfall traps and standard rodent tracking tunnels on Tiwai Peninsula in Southland, South Island, and compared the daily proportions of traps and tunnels that detected skinks via captures and footprints, respectively. Overall, tracking tunnels were approximately twice as likely to detect skinks as pitfall traps. Additional research is required to: (1) test the relative efficacy of footprint tracking versus conventional detection methods on other lizard and reptile species; (2) investigate alternative tunnel designs and long-life lures; and, (3) calibrate footprint tracking rates against density estimates to assess suitability for monitoring.</abstract><cop>Christchurch</cop><pub>New Zealand Ecological Society</pub><doi>10.20417/nzjecol.46.24</doi><tpages>5</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7923-6619</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9391-380X</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4314-3007</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0110-6465 |
| ispartof | New Zealand journal of ecology, 2022-01, Vol.46 (2), p.1-5 |
| issn | 0110-6465 1177-7788 1177-7788 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_journals_2684617035 |
| source | Index New Zealand (Open Access); Jstor Complete Legacy; Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals; Alma/SFX Local Collection |
| subjects | Animal tracks Biodiversity Footprints Lizards Methods Monitoring Pitfall traps R&D Rain Reptiles Reptiles & amphibians Research & development Rodents Sampling Skink trapping Skinks Small mammals Tracking Tracking and trailing Trapping Tunnels |
| title | Comparison of footprint tracking and pitfall trapping for detecting skinks |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-11T02%3A28%3A32IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-jstor_proqu&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Comparison%20of%20footprint%20tracking%20and%20pitfall%20trapping%20for%20detecting%20skinks&rft.jtitle=New%20Zealand%20journal%20of%20ecology&rft.au=Lettink,%20Marieke&rft.aucorp=Fauna%20Finders,%2020%20Days%20Road,%20Lyttelton%208082,%20Christchurch,%20New%20Zealand&rft.date=2022-01-01&rft.volume=46&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=1&rft.epage=5&rft.pages=1-5&rft.issn=0110-6465&rft.eissn=1177-7788&rft_id=info:doi/10.20417/nzjecol.46.24&rft_dat=%3Cjstor_proqu%3E48697164%3C/jstor_proqu%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2684617035&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_jstor_id=48697164&rfr_iscdi=true |