Eficiência de armadilhas de queda (pitfall traps) em amostragens de anfíbios e répteis no Brasil

Cechin, Sônia Zanini; Martins, Marcio

doi:10.1590/S0101-81752000000300017

Resumo

The effectiveness of pitfall traps associated with drift fences to capture amphibians and reptiles in three field studies, in Rio Grande do Sul (extreme southern Brazil), São Paulo (São Paulo, southeastern Brazil), and Amazonas (Amazonas, northern Brazil) is described. At Santa Maria, a total of 2040 amphibians and reptiles were caught in 30 pitfalls (200 L, with drift fence) during 18 months of study (capture efficiencies of 3.78 amphibians and reptiles/pitfall/month and 0.14 snake/pitfall/month). At Itirapina, São Paulo, 1262 amphibians and reptiles were obtained in 72 pitfalls (100 L, with drift fence) during six months (capture efficiencies of 11,9 amphibians and reptiles/pitfall/month and 0,38 snake/pitfall/month). At Rio Pitinga, Amazonas, over 600 amphibians and reptiles were caught in 50 pitfalls (100-150 L, with drift fence) during three months (capture efficiencies of ca. 4.00 amphibians and reptiles/pitfall/month and 0.87 snake/pitfall/month). Capture efficiencies of 1.25 to ~3.92 amphibians and reptiles/pitfall/month were obtained in four other unpublished studies made by other authors in Brazil, all of them using 20-35 L traps, either with or without drift fences. Higher capture efficiencies for snakes were obtained in those studies in which larger containers (100-200 L) were used. The results presented here indicate that pitfall traps are extremely useful to sample amphibians and reptiles in Brazil, especially anurans and lizards. From these results, it is possible to preview the capture of 125 to 1200 amphibians and reptiles with 100 pitfalls during one month, regardless of the size of the pitfalls and sampling design of the trap arrays. The main advantages and disadvantages of the method and detailed guidelines on how to design, install, and use the traps is discussed.

Traps; communities; lizards; snakes; amphibians; herpetofauna; Brazil

Eficiência de armadilhas de queda (pitfall traps) em amostragens de anfíbios e répteis no Brasil

Effectiveness of pitfall traps for sampling amphibians and reptiles in Brazil

Sônia Zanini Cechin^I; Marcio Martins^II

^IDepartamento de Biologia, Centro de Ciências Naturais e Exatas, Universidade Federal de Santa Maria. Estrada de Camobi, Km 9, Camobi, 97105-900 Santa Maria, Rio Grande do Sul, Brasil. E-mail: cechinsz@ccne.ufsm.br

^IIDepartamento de Ecologia, Instituto de Biociências, Universidade de São Paulo. Caixa Postal 11461, 05422-970 São Paulo, São Paulo, Brasil. E-mail: jararaca@ib.usp.br

ABSTRACT

The effectiveness of pitfall traps associated with drift fences to capture amphibians and reptiles in three field studies, in Rio Grande do Sul (extreme southern Brazil), São Paulo (São Paulo, southeastern Brazil), and Amazonas (Amazonas, northern Brazil) is described. At Santa Maria, a total of 2040 amphibians and reptiles were caught in 30 pitfalls (200 L, with drift fence) during 18 months of study (capture efficiencies of 3.78 amphibians and reptiles/pitfall/month and 0.14 snake/pitfall/month). At Itirapina, São Paulo, 1262 amphibians and reptiles were obtained in 72 pitfalls (100 L, with drift fence) during six months (capture efficiencies of 11,9 amphibians and reptiles/pitfall/month and 0,38 snake/pitfall/month). At Rio Pitinga, Amazonas, over 600 amphibians and reptiles were caught in 50 pitfalls (100-150 L, with drift fence) during three months (capture efficiencies of ca. 4.00 amphibians and reptiles/pitfall/month and 0.87 snake/pitfall/month). Capture efficiencies of 1.25 to ~3.92 amphibians and reptiles/pitfall/month were obtained in four other unpublished studies made by other authors in Brazil, all of them using 20-35 L traps, either with or without drift fences. Higher capture efficiencies for snakes were obtained in those studies in which larger containers (100-200 L) were used. The results presented here indicate that pitfall traps are extremely useful to sample amphibians and reptiles in Brazil, especially anurans and lizards. From these results, it is possible to preview the capture of 125 to 1200 amphibians and reptiles with 100 pitfalls during one month, regardless of the size of the pitfalls and sampling design of the trap arrays. The main advantages and disadvantages of the method and detailed guidelines on how to design, install, and use the traps is discussed.

Key words: Traps, communities, lizards, snakes, amphibians, herpetofauna, Brazil

Texto completo disponível apenas em PDF.

Full text available only in PDF format.

AGRADECIMENTOS. No estudo em Santa Maria, Paulo Hartmann, Luis Giasson, Emerson Cassol, Aline Mallmann, Janaine Melchiors, Marília Almeida, Isadora Melo e Dilson Cechin ajudaram na instalação e inspeção das armadilhas. Em Itirapina, Ricardo J. Sawaya, Cinthia A. Brasileiro, Luciano A. dos Anjos, M. Ermelinda Oliveira e Vinícius Bonato ajudaram na instalação e realizaram a inspeção das armadilhas. No rio Pitinga, os funcionários do Núcleo de Animais Peçonhentos, Instituto de Medicina Tropical de Manaus, ajudaram na instalação e inspeção das armadilhas. Resultados inéditos foram gentilmente fornecidos por Alberta Gambuzzi, Cristiano Nogueira, Dante Pavan, Miguel T.U. Rodrigues, Paula H. Valdujo, Reuber Brandão e Vânia R. Pivello. Otávio A.V. Marques, M. Ermelinda Oliveira e dois revisores anônimos sugeriram alterações que melhoraram sensivelmente a versão final do manuscrito. Sugestões adicionais foram fornecidas por Cristiano Nogueira. Miguel T.U. Rodrigues discutiu questões práticas relacionadas a armadilhas de queda. O apoio da FAPESP (processo nº 1995/09642-5) foi essencial para o trabalho em Itirapina e a preparação do manuscrito; esta é a publicação número 1 do projeto "Ecologia dos Cerrados de Itirapina", desenvolvido pelo Departamento de Ecologia do Instituto de Biociências da Universidade de São Paulo.

Recebido em 17.VI.1999; aceito em 25.VIII.2000.

Cadle, J.E. & H.W. Greene. 1993. Phylogenetic patterns, biogeography, and the ecological structure of neotropical snake assemblage, p. 281-293. In: R.E. Ricklefs & D. Schluter (Eds). Species diversity in ecological communities: historical and geographical perspectives. Chicago, Univ. Chicago Press, 416p.
Campbell, H.W. & S.P. Christman. 1982. Field techniques for herpetofaunal community analysis, p. 193-200. In: N.J. Scott Jr. (Ed.). Herpetological communities. Washington, U.S. Fish Wild. Serv. Wildl. Res. Rep. 13. IV+239p.
Corn, P.S. 1994. Straight-line drift fences and pitfall traps, p. 109-117. In: W.R. Heyer; M.A. Donnely; R.W. McDiarmid; L.-A. Hayek & M. Foster (Eds). Measuring and monitoring biological diversity: standard methods for amphibians. Washington, D.C., Smithsonian Institution Press, XIX+364p.
Cunha, O.R. & F.P. Nascimento. 1978. Ofídios da Amazônia X - As cobras da região leste do Pará. Publ. Avul. Mus. Par. Emílio Goeldi 31:1-218.
Gibbons, J.W. & D.H. Bennett. 1974. Determination of anuran terrestrial activity patterns by a drift fence method. Copeia 1974:236-243.
Gibbons, J.W. & R.D. Semlitsch. 1982. Terrestrial drift fences with pitfall traps: an effective technique for quantitative sampling of animal populations. Brimleyana 1982:1-16.
Greenberg, C.H.; D.G. Neary & L. D. Harris. 1994. A comparison of herpetofaunal sampling effectiveness of pitfall, single-ended, and double-ended funnel traps used with drift fences. Jour. Herpetol. 28:319-324.
Hayek, L.A. & M.A. Buzas. 1997. Surveying natural populations. New York, Columbia University Press, XVH+563p.
Martins, M. & M.E. Oliveira. 1999 (datado 1998). Natural history of snakes in forests of the Manaus region, Central Amazonia, Brazil. Herpetol. Nat. Hist. 6:78-150.
Mengak, M.T. & D.C. Guynn Jr. 1987. Pitfalls and snap traps for sampling small mammals and herpetofauna. Amer. Midl. Nat. 118:284-288.
Semlitsch, R.D.; K.L. Brown & J.P. Caldwell. 1981. Habitat utilization, seasonal activity and population size structure of the southeastern crowned snake Tantilla coronata. Herpetologica 37:40-46.
Vogt, R.C. & R.L. Hine. 1982. Evaluation of techniques for assessment of amphibian and reptile populations in Wisconsin, p. 201-217. In: N.J. Scott Jr. (Ed.). Herpetological communities. Washington, U.S. Fish Wild. Serv. Wildl. Res. Rep. 13, IV+239p.
Williams, D.F. & S.E. Braun. 1983. Comparison of pitfall and conventional traps for sampling small mammal populations. Jour. Wildl. Manage. 47:841-845.

Datas de Publicação

Publicação nesta coleção
08 Maio 2009
Data do Fascículo
Set 2000

Histórico

Aceito
25 Ago 2000
Recebido
17 Jun 1999

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

[1] Cadle, J.E. & H.W. Greene. 1993. Phylogenetic patterns, biogeography, and the ecological structure of neotropical snake assemblage, p. 281-293. In: R.E. Ricklefs & D. Schluter (Eds). Species diversity in ecological communities: historical and geographical perspectives. Chicago, Univ. Chicago Press, 416p.

[2] Campbell, H.W. & S.P. Christman. 1982. Field techniques for herpetofaunal community analysis, p. 193-200. In: N.J. Scott Jr. (Ed.). Herpetological communities. Washington, U.S. Fish Wild. Serv. Wildl. Res. Rep. 13. IV+239p.

[3] Corn, P.S. 1994. Straight-line drift fences and pitfall traps, p. 109-117. In: W.R. Heyer; M.A. Donnely; R.W. McDiarmid; L.-A. Hayek & M. Foster (Eds). Measuring and monitoring biological diversity: standard methods for amphibians. Washington, D.C., Smithsonian Institution Press, XIX+364p.

[4] Cunha, O.R. & F.P. Nascimento. 1978. Ofídios da Amazônia X - As cobras da região leste do Pará. Publ. Avul. Mus. Par. Emílio Goeldi 31:1-218.

[5] Gibbons, J.W. & D.H. Bennett. 1974. Determination of anuran terrestrial activity patterns by a drift fence method. Copeia 1974:236-243.

[6] Gibbons, J.W. & R.D. Semlitsch. 1982. Terrestrial drift fences with pitfall traps: an effective technique for quantitative sampling of animal populations. Brimleyana 1982:1-16.

[7] Greenberg, C.H.; D.G. Neary & L. D. Harris. 1994. A comparison of herpetofaunal sampling effectiveness of pitfall, single-ended, and double-ended funnel traps used with drift fences. Jour. Herpetol. 28:319-324.

[8] Hayek, L.A. & M.A. Buzas. 1997. Surveying natural populations. New York, Columbia University Press, XVH+563p.

[9] Martins, M. & M.E. Oliveira. 1999 (datado 1998). Natural history of snakes in forests of the Manaus region, Central Amazonia, Brazil. Herpetol. Nat. Hist. 6:78-150.

[10] Mengak, M.T. & D.C. Guynn Jr. 1987. Pitfalls and snap traps for sampling small mammals and herpetofauna. Amer. Midl. Nat. 118:284-288.

[11] Semlitsch, R.D.; K.L. Brown & J.P. Caldwell. 1981. Habitat utilization, seasonal activity and population size structure of the southeastern crowned snake Tantilla coronata. Herpetologica 37:40-46.

[12] Vogt, R.C. & R.L. Hine. 1982. Evaluation of techniques for assessment of amphibian and reptile populations in Wisconsin, p. 201-217. In: N.J. Scott Jr. (Ed.). Herpetological communities. Washington, U.S. Fish Wild. Serv. Wildl. Res. Rep. 13, IV+239p.

[13] Williams, D.F. & S.E. Braun. 1983. Comparison of pitfall and conventional traps for sampling small mammal populations. Jour. Wildl. Manage. 47:841-845.