Determinants of capture-recapture success: an evaluation of trapping methods to estimate population and community parameters for Atlantic forest small mammals

Barros, Camila Santos; Püttker, Thomas; Pinotti, Bruno T.; Pardini, Renata

doi:10.1590/s1984-46702015000500002

Cited by 21 publications

(36 citation statements)

References 27 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Also, pitfall traps may be perceived as kill traps, but there are a number of options that can greatly limit the number of accidental deaths (Barros et al. ). To reduce the probability of accidental death, pitfall traps need daily maintenance to remove water, any captured animals and bycatch (Barros et al.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Optimising sampling methods for small mammal communities in Neotropical rainforests

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Quantifying mammalian biodiversity is a critical yet daunting challenge, particularly in species‐rich ecosystems. Non‐volant small mammals account for >60% of the mammalian diversity and often require several survey methods to estimate their species richness and abundance, because of differences in their size and behaviour. Using 117 studies at 278 sites in a species‐rich biome, the Brazilian Atlantic Forest, we determined the influence of trap configuration, trap type, and sampling effort on measures of species richness and abundance. We used generalised linear mixed‐effects models to determine which methodological approaches influenced estimates of species richness and abundance at the sampling sites. We used estimates of beta (β) to determine which methods improved species richness and abundance estimates, and generated predicted values for the overall species richness as a function of trap configuration (line transect, grid, or both), trap type (pitfall traps, live‐traps or both), and sampling effort (number of trap‐nights). Our results indicated that sites in which pitfall traps alone were used generated higher estimates of the overall small mammal species richness and abundance, and rodent abundance, than sites in which only live‐traps were used. Sites in which pitfall traps alone were used also produced higher estimates of species richness and abundance, and rodent species richness and abundance, than sites in which both trap types were used. Increased sampling effort led to increased estimates of species richness, but sites in which pitfall traps were used alone or together with live‐traps had higher estimates of species richness with less sampling effort than sites in which live‐traps only were used. Using pitfall traps greatly reduced the number of trap‐nights necessary to obtain a good estimate of small mammal species richness in a community. We found no influence of trap configuration (line transects or grids) on estimates of species richness, but the abundance of rodents was estimated to be higher in sites where both line transects and grids were used, than in sites where only one trap configuration was used. Our review shows the importance of using pitfall traps in research, monitoring, and environmental impact studies on species‐rich small mammal communities.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…To reduce the probability of accidental death, pitfall traps need daily maintenance to remove water, any captured animals and bycatch (Barros et al. ).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Optimising sampling methods for small mammal communities in Neotropical rainforests

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…There was no selective capture of either life stage in live-traps. Other studies detected a bias for adult capture in live-traps (Boonstra and Krebs 1978;O'Connel 1989;Vieira 1996;Quental et al 2001) or that juveniles were more captured with pitfalls (Barros et al 2015). Due to their smaller body size, juveniles could get away from live-traps even after they were closed (Umetsu et al 2006).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…White et al (1982) considered Sherman traps to offer more protection to animals. Barros et al (2015) believe that animals captured in pitfall traps are more exposed to predation, aggressive interactions within the captured assemblage, and inclement weather conditions than those in live-traps. Nevertheless, it is possible to deploy some simple measures that avoid water accumulation, protect animals from rain and sun, and avoid starvation in pitfalls.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Due to their smaller body size, juveniles could get away from live-traps even after they were closed (Umetsu et al 2006). Alternatively, adults are more abundant than juveniles in small mammal populations (Gentile et al 2000;Feliciano et al 2002;Barros et al 2008), leading to correspondingly higher numbers of captured adults (Barros et al 2015).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Differencial efficiency of two sampling methods in capturing non-volant small mammals in an area in eastern Amazonia

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study was the first to evaluate the efficiency of trapping methods in the study of small mammals in the Carajás National Forest, southeastern Brazilian Amazon. It is an area with a unique vegetation type (metalofilic savannah or Canga). The aims of this study were to compare the efficiency of two trapping methods (i.e. live-traps and pitfalls), the bait types used, and evaluate if trapping success varied seasonally. We used four sampling grids, each with six parallel transects. The trap effort for live-traps and pitfalls was 51,840 trap*nights and 10,800 bucket*nights, respectively. We used three types of bait: a paste of peanut butter and sardines, bacon, and bananas. We placed one type of bait in each trap, alternating between points. We recorded 26 species of small mammals, 11 from the order Didelphimorphia and 15 from the order Rodentia. Pitfalls captured a higher number of species compared with live-traps. The capture rate, the mortality rate and the quantity of juveniles and adults did not differ significantly between methods. Capture rate for pitfalls differed significantly between seasons. The majority of species were captured by a single method. Species were equally attracted to the traps regardless of the type of bait used. Some of our results differed significantly from other studies in Amazonia and such variation should be taken into account when designing survey methods for Amazonian small mammals. KEYWORDS: Live-traps; pitfall-traps; Didelphimorphia; Rodentia; capture rate Diferenças na eficiência entre dois métodos de amostragem para capturar pequenos mamíferos não-voadores em uma área na Amazônia oriental RESUMO Este estudo foi o primeiro a avaliar a eficiência de métodos de captura de pequenos mamíferos não-voadores na Floresta Nacional de Carajás, sudeste da Amazônia brasileira. É uma área que apresenta características fitofisionômicas exclusivas (savana metalófila ou Canga) e sofre pressão da atividade mineradora. Os objetivos desse estudo foram comparar a eficiência de dois métodos de captura e de três tipos de iscas, bem como se a eficiência dos métodos variou sazonalmente. Nós usamos quatro grades de amostragem, cada uma com seis trilhas paralelas. Capturas com armadilhas de gaiola (live-traps) e armadilhas de caída (pitfall traps) foram realizadas durante três estações secas e três úmidas. O esforço total de captura foi de 51.840 armadilhas*noite e 10.800 baldes*noite para live-traps e pitfalls, respectivamente. Três tipos de isca (pasta de amendoim com sardinha, bacon e banana) foram usadas de forma alternada em todas as armadilhas. Nós registramos 26 espécies de pequenos mamíferos, 11 da ordem Didelphimorphia e 15 da ordem Rodentia. Pitfalls capturaram mais espécies que live-traps. As taxas de captura e de mortalidade e a proporção de jovens e adultos não diferiram entre os métodos. O sucesso de captura diferiu sazonalmente apenas para pitfalls. A maioria das espécies foi capturada preferencialmente ou exclusivamente por um dos dois métodos. As espécies foram igualmente atra...

show abstract

The effects of a zoo environment on free‐living, native small mammal species

2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

One of the main threats to native species conservation is urbanisation. It is causing changes to natural habitats and species composition. Urban green spaces have shown to have conservation value for native species by providing safe spaces in urban areas. They typically contain a variety of habitats and plant species which is correlated with greater abundance and diversity of small mammal species. Zoos are a vital resource for animal conservation and, in some instances, could be considered as an urban green space for native species conservation. Their unique environment provides free-living, native species an abundance of resources including food and shelter. This project involved the live trapping of free-living small mammal species (<40 g) between enclosures in Dudley Zoological Gardens to study the effects of the zoo environment. There were no significant differences found between the total number of captures and trap proximity to enclosures. There was a significant difference in total captures found between different enclosure trapping areas. Generalized linear mixed models were fitted to the data and there were significant relationships between abundance and both habitat type and enclosure species.Habitats associated with semi-natural woodland had the greatest diversity and total captures of small mammals. Total captures were lower in trapping areas that were associated with predatory species. Similar to research on green spaces, habitat was an important factor determining abundance, but predator enclosures were a factor unique to zoos. This study illustrates the potential of zoos as an urban green space and for the study of small mammals.

show abstract

Determinants of capture-recapture success: an evaluation of trapping methods to estimate population and community parameters for Atlantic forest small mammals

Cited by 21 publications

References 27 publications

Optimising sampling methods for small mammal communities in Neotropical rainforests

Optimising sampling methods for small mammal communities in Neotropical rainforests

Differencial efficiency of two sampling methods in capturing non-volant small mammals in an area in eastern Amazonia

The effects of a zoo environment on free‐living, native small mammal species

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About