Can Baited Pitfall Traps for Sampling Dung Beetles Replace Conventional Traps for Sampling Ants?

Abstract

Ants and dung beetles are widely used in monitoring biodiversity and are considered excellent environmental indicators. Although the pitfall trap is the most commonly used method to sample dung beetles and ants in ecological studies, beetles are usually sampled using dung‐baited pitfall traps while ants are sampled using un‐baited pitfalls. In the protocol for collecting the beetles it is necessary to have attractive baits in pitfalls. In order to minimize collection effort and costs and to facilitate logistics, it is necessary to determine if there is an effect of the baits on the biodiversity of ants collected in the same traps. Therefore, the objective of this work was to find out whether baited pitfalls could replace conventional pitfalls for the capture of ants. In a total of 42 areas of native habitat, three baited pitfall traps and three without bait were installed, all in the same transect, equidistant ten meters and in activity for 48 hours. In total, 150 species were collected, of which 131 were recorded in non‐baited pitfalls and 107 in baited pitfalls. Traps without bait contributed to 28% of the total number of species captured in this study, whereas pitfalls with bait contributed only to 12% of the total species caught. However, 60% of the total species were captured regardless of the method. In addition to the loss of species among the types of traps, the effect of the method modifies the species composition. We concluded that depending on the type of study, a small decrease in the number of species and change in the composition can influence the results. Thus, we recommend that baited pitfalls should not replace conventional pitfalls.Palavras-chave: Método de coleta; Protocolo de coleta; Desenho da amostra; Esforço de amostragem.

Contribution to knowledge of Amazonian Myrmecofauna: new records for the state of Mato Grosso, Brazil

“…Our results add to the knowledge of the distribution of species of the ant species of Amazonian in the state of Mato Grosso, with the occurrence recording of seven new species for the state. Even though studies using soil fauna sampling methodologies, as pitfalls trap that is similar to PROVID-type soil traps used in this study, are the most common in Brazilian Biomes (Carvalho et al, 2014;Souza et al 2016;Gomes et al, 2018;Przybyszewski et al, 2020;Lutinski et al, 2021), the results of this study demonstrate that the diversity of ants in this region is still poorly known. This evidence is even greater when considering the arboreal stratum that is rarely sampled in some parts of the Amazon and Pantanal (Yamazaki et al, 2016;Dambros et al, 2018;Vicente and Izzo, 2021;Pringle et al, 2019).…”

Divergence of Ant Communities Over Time in a Fragmented Atlantic Rain Forest Landscape

“…Traps were baited with human feces and cattle carrion, and remained in the field for 48 h. These baits were used because, in addition to ants, samples were also intended to collect other invertebrates. Although the use of bait is not common in ant community studies, it is known that at least 60% of total ant species are captured using this method (Przybyszewski et al, 2020). Furthermore, the same method was repeated in all sampled and years.…”

Community Structure of Dung Beetles (Scarabaeidae: Scarabaeinae) in The Atlantic Forest of the Reserva Natural Vale (Linhares, Espírito Santo, Brazil)

“…Among the insects with the potential to use in monitoring environmental changes caused by human activities, dung beetles (Coleoptera, Scarabaeinae) and ants (Hymenoptera, Formicidae) are the most used taxonomic group (e.g. : Storck-Tonon et al, 2020;Przybyszewski et al, 2020;Arruda et al, 2022) because of their abundance and extremely important roles played in the ecosystems (Halffter & Favila 1993;Del Toro et al, 2012).…”