Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Comparing the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of two sampling methods for monitoring carabid beetle diversity, species assemblages and conservation status in an alpine grassland

  • ORIGINAL PAPER
  • Published:
Journal of Insect Conservation Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Among the methods aimed at assessing carabid beetle diversity, pitfall trapping (PFT) is currently much more widely used than hand searching (HS). However, few studies have evaluated the effectiveness of these two methods based on the same sampling effort, none in mountain areas. Here, we compared PFT and HS in terms of accuracy of the species richness estimate, detection of threatened species and cost-effectiveness, based on equal time spent in the field. The study was conducted along an elevational gradient in the alpine zone of the French Pyrenees. Our results showed that recorded species richness was significantly greater when sampling was performed using HS, suggesting that PFT only detected a subset of the ground beetle assemblage existing at each sampling plot. HS was more effective at characterizing rare species, especially microendemic species threatened by climate change. HS also enabled better detection of small species and of winged species. Additionally, HS involves fewer logistical constraints in performing field work and prevents overkilling in fragile alpine populations. However, some of the benefits we have highlighted in favour of HS may be specific to the studied habitat type, calling for more studies in different mountain habitats.

Implications for insect conservation

Our results show that PFT alone does not allow for an accurate assessment of the conservation status of highly specialised alpine species, if they are small in size. Moreover, HS has a lower lethal impact on local insect populations. HS should therefore be recommended, whenever it is practically feasible, in the most sensitive and threatened high-alpine environments.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

No datasets were generated or analysed during the current study.

References

  • Bertoia A, Murray T, Robertson BC, Monks JM (2023) Pitfall trapping outperforms other methods for surveying ground-dwelling large-bodied alpine invertebrates. J Insect Conserv 27:679–692. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10841-023-00498-4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brennan KEC, Majer JD, Reygaert N (1999) Determination of an optimal pitfall trap size for sampling spiders in a Western Australian Jarrah forest. J Insect Conserv 3:297–307

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown GR, Matthews IM (2016) A review of extensive variation in the design of pitfall traps and a proposal for a standard pitfall trap design for monitoring ground-active arthropod biodiversity. Ecol Evol 6(12):3953–3964. https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.2176

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Chamberlain D, Gobbi M, Negro M, Caprio E, Palestrini C, Pedrotti L, Brandmayr P, Pizzolotto R, Rolando A (2021) Trait-modulated decline of carabid beetle occurrence along elevation gradients across the European Alps. Dryad. https://doi.org/10.5061/dryad.fn2z34tq1

  • Chouard P (1949) Démonstrations tirées des excursions (Gavarnie, Pic du Midi de Bigorre, Néouvielle). Bulletin De La Société Botanique De France 96:29–52

    Google Scholar 

  • Collett RA, Fisher DO (2017) Time-lapse camera trapping as an alternative to pitfall trapping for estimating activity of leaf litter arthropods. Ecol Evol 7:7527–7533. https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.3275

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Coulon J, Pupier R, Queinnec E, Ollivier E, Richoux P (2011) Coléoptères Carabidae de France: Compléments aux 2 volumes de René Jeannel. Mise à jour, corrections et répertoire. Faune De France 94:1–352

    Google Scholar 

  • Dajoz R (1977) Les biocénoses de coléoptères de la haute vallée d’Aure et du massif de Néouvielle (Hautes Pyrénées). Cahiers Des Naturalistes - Bulletin Des Naturalistes Parisiens 31(1):1–36

    Google Scholar 

  • Den Boer PJ (1990) Density limits and survival of local populations in 64 carabid species with different powers of dispersal. J Evol Biol 3:19–48

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Driscoll DA (2010) Few beetle species can be detected with 95% confidence using pitfall traps. Austral Ecol 35:13–23

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Engel J, Hertzog L, Tiede J, Wagg C, Ebeling A, Briesen H et al (2017) Pitfall trap sampling bias depends on body mass, temperature, and trap number: insights from an individual-based model. Ecosphere 8:e01790. https://doi.org/10.1002/ecs2.1790

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gardarin A, Valantin-Morison M (2021) Which pitfall traps and sampling effort to choose to evaluate cropping system effects on spider and carabid assemblages? Environ Entomol 50(1):256–266. https://doi.org/10.1093/ee/nvaa145

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Gobbi M (2020) Global warning: challenges, threats and opportunities for ground beetles (Coleoptera: Carabidae) in high altitude habitats. Acta Zoologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 66(Suppl):5–20. https://doi.org/10.17109/AZH.66.Suppl.5.2020

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gobbi M, Barragán A, Brambilla M, Moreno E, Pruna W, Moret P (2018) Hand searching versus pitfall trapping: how to assess biodiversity of ground beetles (Coleoptera: Carabidae) in high altitude equatorial Andes? J Insect Conserv 22(3–4):533–543

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hammer Ø, Harper DAT, Ryan PD (2001) PAST: Paleontological statistics software package for education and data analysis. Palaeontol Electron 4(1):9

    Google Scholar 

  • Harry I, Drees C, Hofer H, Assmann T (2011) When to sample in an inaccessible landscape: a case study with carabids from the Allgäu (northern Alps) (Coleoptera, Carabidae). ZooKeys 100:255–271. https://doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.100.1531

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hortal J, Borges PAV, Gaspar C (2006) Evaluating the performance of species richness estimators: sensitivity to sample grain size. J Anim Ecol 75:274–287. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2656.2006.01048.x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Klopsch C, Yde JC, Matthews JA, Vater AE, Gillespie MA (2023) Repeated survey along the foreland of a receding Norwegian glacier reveals shifts in succession of beetles and spiders. The Holocene 33(1):14–26. https://doi.org/10.1177/09596836221126032

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Knapp M, Knappová J, Jakubec P, Vonička P, Moravec P (2020) Incomplete species lists produced by pitfall trapping: how many carabid species and which functional traits are missing? Biol Conserv 245:108545. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2020.108545

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kotze D, Brandmayr P, Casale A, Dauffy-Richard E, Dekoninck W, Koivula M, Lovei G, Mossakowski D, Noordijk J, Paarmann W, Pizzoloto R, Saska P, Schwerk A, Serrano J, Szyszko J, Taboada Palomares A, Turin H, Venn S, Vermeulen R, Zetto Brandmayr T (2011) Forty years of carabid beetle research in Europe: from taxonomy, biology, ecology and population studies to bioindication, habitat assessment and conservation. ZooKeys 100:55–148. https://doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.100.1523

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lang A (2000) The pitfalls of pitfalls: a comparison of pitfall trap catches and absolute density estimates of epigeal invertebrate predators in Arable Land. J Pest Sci 73:99–106

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laville H, Lavandier P (1977) Les Chironomides (Diptera) d’un torrent pyrénéen de haute montagne: L’Estaragne. Ann Limnol 13(1):57–81

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lencioni V, Gobbi M (2021) Monitoring and conservation of cryophilous biodiversity: concerns when working with insect populations in vanishing glacial habitats. Insect Conservation and Diversity 14(6):723–729

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lövei GL, Ferrante M (2023) The use and prospects of nonlethal methods in entomology. Ann Rev Entomol. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-ento-120220-024402

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lövei GL, Ferrante M, Möller D, Möller G, Vincze E (2023) The need for a (non-destructive) method revolution in entomology. Biol Conserv. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2023.110075

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lüdeke M, Germann C, Jentzsch M (2023) Laufkäfer und ihre Habitatpräferenzen entlang eines Höhentransekts von 2100 bis 2500 m ü. M. oberhalb der Alp Flix in den Schweizer Alpen (Coleoptera, Carabidae). Alp Entomol 7:57–62

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mommertz S, Schauer C, Kösters N, Lang A, Filser J (1996) A comparison of D-Vac suction, fenced and unfenced pitfall trap sampling of epigeal arthropods in agroecosystems. Ann Zool Fenn 33:117–124

    Google Scholar 

  • Panza R, Gobbi M (2022) Areal contraction, upward shift and habitat fragmentation in the cold-adapted ground beetle Nebria germarii Heer, 1837 in the Brenta Dolomites, Italy. Rend Fis Acc Lincei 33:923–931. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12210-022-01112-6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pearson DL (1988) Biology of tiger beetles. Annu Rev Entomol 33(1):123–147

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Plunger J, Guariento E, Steinwandter M, Colla F, Rief A, Seeber J (2022) Shifts in ground-dwelling predator communities in response to changes in management intensity in Alpine meadows. Soil Org 94(3):149–161. https://doi.org/10.25674/so94iss3id306

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Privet K, Vedel V, Fortunel C, Orivel J, Martinez Q, Cerdan A, Baraloto C, Pétillon J (2020) Relative efficiency of pitfall trapping vs. nocturnal hand collecting in assessing soil-dwelling spider diversity along a structural gradient of neotropical habitats. Diversity. https://doi.org/10.3390/d12020081

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ramírez-Hernández A, Escobar F, Montes de Oca E, Arellano L (2018) Assessing three sampling methods to survey and monitor ground beetles (Coleoptera: Carabidae) in Riparian cloud forests. Environ Entomol 47(6):1565–1572. https://doi.org/10.1093/ee/nvy132

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Schirmel J, Lenze S, Katzmann D, Buchholz S (2010) Capture efficiency of pitfall traps is highly affected by sampling interval. Entomol Exp Appl 136:206–210

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sedlmeier JE, Faille A (2022) First insights into the phylogeny of the subgenus Cryobius Chaudoir, 1838 (Coleoptera: Carabidae: Pterostichus). Arthropod Syst Phylogeny 80:523–539. https://doi.org/10.3897/asp.80.e84114

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Skvarla MJ, Larson JL, Dowling APG (2016) Pitfalls and preservatives: a review. J Entomol Soc Ont 145:15–43

    Google Scholar 

  • Spence J, Niemelä J (1994) Sampling carabid assemblages with pitfall traps: the madness and the method. Can Entomol 126(3):881–894

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Urban MC (2018) Escalator to extinction. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 115(47):11871–11873

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Valle B, Gobbi M, Brambilla M, Borgatti MS, Caccianiga M (2023) Finding the optimal strategy for quantitative sampling of springtails community (Hexapoda: Collembola) in glacial lithosols. Pedobiologia. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pedobi.2023.150914

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Viterbi R, Cerrato C, Bassano B et al (2013) Patterns of biodiversity in the northwestern Italian Alps: a multi-taxa approach. Community Ecol 14:18–30. https://doi.org/10.1556/ComEc.14.2013.1.3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Woodcock BA (2005) Pitfall trapping in ecological studies. In: Leather SR (ed) Insect sampling in forest ecosystems. Wiley, Hoboken

    Google Scholar 

  • Work TT, Buddle CM, Korinus LM, Spence JR (2002) Pitfall trap size and capture of three taxa of litter-dwelling arthropods: implications for biodiversity studies. Environ Entomol 31(3):438–448. https://doi.org/10.1603/0046-225X-31.3.438

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yamanaka S, Hironaka Y, Ozaki K (2019) Cost-effective sampling for estimating species richness of ground beetles (Coleoptera: Carabidae) using pitfall traps: efficiency of non-parametric species richness estimators. Appl Entomol Zool 54:231–238. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13355-019-00617-1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zaller JG, Kerschbaumer G, Rizzoli R, Tiefenbacher A, Gruber E, Schedl H (2015) Monitoring arthropods in protected grasslands: comparing pitfall trapping, quadrat sampling and video monitoring. Web Ecol 15:15–23. https://doi.org/10.5194/we-15-15-2015

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This study is part of the Life Without Ice project funded by the BNP Paribas Foundation. The Parc national des Pyrénées provided research and collection permits numbers 2021-77 and 2022-57. Special thanks are due to Fabien Anthelme and Merlin Ramel for their help during the field work.

Funding

Fieldwork was funded by the Life Without Ice project, BNP Paribas Foundation.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Laboratoire TRACES UMR5608, Toulouse University, CNRS, UT2J, Toulouse, France

    Pierre Moret

  2. Climate and Ecology Unit, Research and Museum Collections Office, MUSE-Science Museum, Corso del Lavoro E Della Scienza 3, I, 38122, Trento, Italy

    Mauro Gobbi

Authors
  1. Pierre Moret
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Mauro Gobbi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

PM conceived the study and collected the field data; MG and PM analysed the data; PM and MG wrote the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Pierre Moret.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (PNG 236 KB)

Supplementary file2 (XLSX 20 KB)

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Moret, P., Gobbi, M. Comparing the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of two sampling methods for monitoring carabid beetle diversity, species assemblages and conservation status in an alpine grassland. J Insect Conserv (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10841-024-00590-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10841-024-00590-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation