Testing the effect of pitfall-trap installation on ant sampling

Lasmar, Chaim J.; Queiroz, Antônio César Medeiros de; Rabello, Ananza M.; Feitosa, Rodrigo M.; Canedo-Júnior, E. O.; Schmidt, Fernando Augusto; Cuissi, Rafael Gonçalves; Ribas, Carla R.

doi:10.1007/s00040-017-0558-7

Cited by 23 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 35 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…For open habitats we found that the influence of the DE was different from the results of Greenslade (), as it induced fewer captures immediately after setting the traps. Similar results were found by Lasmar et al () for arboreal ants, with an increase in abundance of workers and number of species sometime after had the pitfall traps were installed. The authors commented that this may be caused by familiarization with the traps after the ants had initially avoided the foreign objects.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 89%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The digging‐in effect on ant studies with pitfall traps: influence of type of habitat and sampling time

Jiménez‐Carmona

Carpintero

Reyes-López

2019

Entomologia Exp Applicata

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Pitfall traps are among the most common sampling methods used for the study of ants. There are many types of traps and many possible ways of using them. The various methodologies may introduce biases in sampling. One possible bias may be caused by the digging‐in effect (DE), resulting in higher catches of ants immediately after traps are set in the ground which subsequently decline. In this study, we performed two experiments to verify the consequences of the DE for ants in a Mediterranean ecosystem. In the first experiment we distinguished between two types of habitats: closed and open (i.e., with or without shrub or tree cover). The second experiment was carried out in a homogeneous pasture where the time of prevalence of the DE was verified, investigating the duration of the effect. The results indicate differences between communities in the first 24 h after setting of the traps, which had disappeared after 48 h. This does not dismiss the possibility of certain species being affected either positively (increase in captures) or negatively (decrease). Changes in species composition, determining whether the DE was manifested or not, differed among habitat types.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 89%

“…Despite being a well‐studied phenomenon, recent studies have cast doubt on the existence of a generalized effect in the particular case of ants (Schirmel et al, ; Lasmar et al, ). This is probably because high ecological and behavioural variability of this group causes that various species respond in different ways.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The digging‐in effect on ant studies with pitfall traps: influence of type of habitat and sampling time

Jiménez‐Carmona

Carpintero

Reyes-López

2019

Entomologia Exp Applicata

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, when evaluating the number of infrequent species, TSBF is superior (42.7% of the species sampled). This may be explained by the fact that pitfall traps remained in the field for 72 hours, increasing the likelihood of species occurring more than once and increasing the number of species captured (see Lasmar et al 2017). Another factor that can explain this difference is the higher ant activity in the ground surface due to nesting and foraging than in the hypogaeic stratum (Jacquemin et al 2016).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Accessing the subterranean ant fauna (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) in native and modified subtropical landscapes in the Neotropics

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Several studies have characterized and delimited subterranean ant assemblages. Soil extraction, one of the methods employed to access this fauna, employs the removal of monoliths. One of the most widely used methods for the extraction of soil sampling is called TSBF (developed by the Tropical Soil Biology and Fertility Programme). This method provides relevant data about the species associated with the soil. In the present study we characterized assemblages of subterranean ants using the TSBF method in different subtropical areas of the Neotropics. We considered two sampling designs in different localities. The first design resulted in 315 TSBF samples obtained from layers at distinct depths. The second design resulted in 270 TSBF samples and 270 epigaeic pitfall trap samples. This material was used to delimit the species that occur exclusively in the subterranean stratum (TSBF) and that are not found on the soil surface. A total of 281 species were recorded. Of these, 57 can be considered subterranean, based on their occurrence in subterranean strata. We also verified that the highest occurrence of ants was in the first 10 cm of soil depth. Due to the importance of using methods that efficiently extract the subterranean ant fauna in studies, we suggest the TSBF method should be used to sample ants or to associate this method with epigaeic pitfall traps to delimit strictly subterranean assemblages in specific community stratification studies.

show abstract

“…Various authors proposed to standardize biodiversity monitoring procedures so that the results may be compared more easily (see Brown & Matthews, 2016). Variability in results among trapping methods may be caused by various factors that affect the trappability of individuals and species, such as the digging‐in effect (Joosse & Kapteijn, 1968; Greenslade, 1973; Lasmar et al, 2017; Jiménez‐Carmona et al, 2019), the exclusion of vegetation (Honek, 1988; Melbourne, 1999; Phillips & Cobb, 2005), different characteristics of the pitfall traps, or in the methodology employed. Over time, many of these variables have been studied, for example: the use of lids, funnels, types of baits, preservatives, trap diameter, or material (Woodcock, 2005; Brown & Matthews, 2016; Sheikh et al, 2018).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%