Evaluating spatial autocorrelation and depletion in pitfall-trap studies of environmental gradients

Abstract

Studies of environmental gradients like edge effects commonly employ designs where samples are collected at unequal distances within transects. This approach risks confounding species patterns caused by the environmental gradient with patterns resulting from the spatial arrangement of the sampling scheme. Spatial autocorrelation and depletion (reduced catch) have the potential to influence pitfall-trap collections of invertebrates. Readily available control data from a study of edge and riparian effects on forest litter beetles was used to assess autocorrelation and depletion effects. Data from control transects distant from the treatment transects located at habitat edges and streams were screened to determine whether the study design (pitfall traps at varying distances within transects) was imposing patterns on the data attributable to differential autocorrelation or depletion. Autocorrelation in species composition and assemblage structure was not detected within the 99 m transects. The abundance and species richness of beetles were not lower where traps were in closer proximity, indicating that the transect design was not causing measurable depletion or resulting in differential trap catch. These findings indicate that spatial autocorrelation and depletion are unlikely to impair further analyses of edge and riparian effects on litter beetles.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

References

  1. S.C. Baker A.M.M. Richarsdon O.D. Seeman L.A. Barmuta (2004) ArticleTitleDoes clearfell, burn and sow silviculture mimic the effect of wildfire? A field study and review using litter beetles For. Ecol. Manage. 199 433–448

    Google Scholar 

  2. S.E. Bedford M.B. Usher (1994) ArticleTitleDistribution of arthropod species across the margins of farm woodlands Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 48 295–305 Occurrence Handle10.1016/0167-8809(94)90111-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Briggs J.B. 1961. A comparison of pitfall trapping and soil sampling in assessing populations of two species of ground beetles (Col.: Carabidae). Report of East Malling Research Station for 1960, pp. 108–112.

  4. D. Dalthorp (2004) ArticleTitleThe generalized linear model for spatial data: assessing the effects of environmental covariates on population density in the field Entomol. Exp. Appl. 111 117–131 Occurrence Handle10.1111/j.0013-8703.2004.00158.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. J.M. Dangerfield A.J. Pik D. Britton A. Holmes M. Gillings I. Oliver D. Briscoe A.J. Beattie (2003) ArticleTitlePatterns of invertebrate biodiversity across a natural edge Austral Ecol. 28 227–236 Occurrence Handle10.1046/j.1442-9993.2003.01240.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. K.F. Davies C.R. Margules J.F. Lawrence (2004) ArticleTitleA synergistic effect puts rare, specialized species at greater risk of extinction Ecology 85 265–271

    Google Scholar 

  7. A.C. Davison D.V. Hinkley (1997) Bootstrap Methods and Their Application Cambridge University Press Cambridge, UK

    Google Scholar 

  8. R.K. Didham P.M. Hammond J.H. Lawton P. Eggleton N.E. Stork (1998) ArticleTitleBeetle species responses to tropical forest fragmentation Ecol. Monogr. 68 295–323 Occurrence Handle10.2307/2657241

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. S.C. Digweed C.R. Currie H.A. Cárcamo J.R. Spence (1995) ArticleTitleDigging out the “digging-in effect” of pitfall traps: influences of depletion and disturbance on catches of ground beetles (Coleoptera: Carabidae) Pedobiologia 39 561–576

    Google Scholar 

  10. B.J. Downes L.A. Barmuta P.G. Fairweather D.P. Faith M.J. Keough P.S. Lake B.D. Mapstone G.P. Quinn (2002) Monitoring Ecological Impacts: Concepts and Practice in Flowing Waters Cambridge University Press Cambridge, UK

    Google Scholar 

  11. P.J.M. Greenslade (1964) ArticleTitlePitfall trapping as a method for studying populations of Carabidae (Coleoptera) J. Anim. Ecol. 33 301–310 Occurrence Handle10.2307/2632

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. P.J.M. Greenslade (1973) ArticleTitleSampling ants with pitfall traps: digging-in effects Insect. Soc. 20 343–353 Occurrence Handle10.1007/BF02226087

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. P. Greenslade P.J.M. Greenslade (1971) ArticleTitleThe use of baits and preservatives in pitfall traps J. Aust. Ent. Soc. 10 253–260

    Google Scholar 

  14. T.H. Keitt O.N. Bjornstad P.M. Dixon S. Citron-Pousty (2002) ArticleTitleAccounting for spatial pattern when modeling organism–environment interactions Ecography 25 616–625 Occurrence Handle10.1034/j.1600-0587.2002.250509.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. D.J. Kotze M.J. Samways (2001) ArticleTitleNo general edge effects for invertebrates at Afromontane forest/grassland ecotones Biodivers. Conserv. 10 443–466 Occurrence Handle10.1023/A:1016606209906

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. P. Legendre (1993) ArticleTitleSpatial autocorrelation: trouble or new paradigm? Ecology 74 1659–1673 Occurrence Handle10.2307/1939924

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. M. Leponce L. Theunis J.H.C. Delabie Y. Roisin (2004) ArticleTitleScale dependence of diversity measures in a leaf-litter ant assemblage Ecography 27 253–267 Occurrence Handle10.1111/j.0906-7590.2004.03715.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. M.L. Luff (1968) ArticleTitleSome effects of formalin on the numbers of Coleoptera caught in pitfall traps Entomol. Mon. Mag. 104 115–116

    Google Scholar 

  19. M.L. Luff (1975) ArticleTitleSome features influencing the efficiency of pitfall traps Oecologia 19 345–357

    Google Scholar 

  20. A.E. Magurran (2004) Measuring Biological Diversity Blackwell Malden, MA

    Google Scholar 

  21. B.A. Melbourne (1999) ArticleTitleBias in the effect of habitat structure on pitfall traps: an experimental evaluation Aust. J. Ecol. 24 228–239 Occurrence Handle10.1046/j.1442-9993.1999.00967.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. J. Niemelä (1990) Spatial distribution of carabid beetles in the southern Finnish taiga: the question of scale N.E. Stork (Eds) The Role of Ground Beetles in Ecological and Environmental Studies Intercept Hampshire, UK 143–155

    Google Scholar 

  23. J. Niemelä Y. Haila P. Puntilla (1996) ArticleTitleThe importance of small-scale heterogeneity in boreal forests: variation in diversity in forest-floor invertebrates across the succession gradient Ecography 19 352–368 Occurrence Handle10.1111/j.1600-0587.1996.tb00246.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Oksanen J. 2004. Vegan: community ecology package. R package version 1.6–4.

  25. J. Perner S. Schueler (2004) ArticleTitleEstimating the density of ground-dwelling arthropods with pitfall traps using a nested-cross array J. Anim. Ecol. 73 469–477 Occurrence Handle10.1111/j.0021-8790.2004.00821.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. InstitutionalAuthorNameR Development Core Team (2003) R: a language and environment for statistical computing R Foundation for Statistical Computing Vienna, Austria

    Google Scholar 

  27. L.K. Rieske L.J. Buss (2001) ArticleTitleInfluence of site on diversity and abundance of ground- and litter-dwelling Coleoptera in Appalachian oak-hickory forests Environ. Entomol. 30 484–494 Occurrence Handle10.1603/0046-225X-30.3.484

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. R.A. Sanderson S.P. Rushton A.J. Cherril J.P. Byrne (1995) ArticleTitleSoil, vegetation and space: an analysis of their effects on the invertebrate communities of a moorland in north-east England J. Appl. Ecol. 32 506–518 Occurrence Handle10.2307/2404648

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. J.R. Spence J.K. Niemelä (1994) ArticleTitleSampling carabid beetle assemblages with pitfall traps: the madness in the method Can. Entomol. 126 881–894

    Google Scholar 

  30. H.H. Wagner (2004) ArticleTitleDirect multi-scale ordination with canonical correspondence analysis Ecology 85 342–351

    Google Scholar 

  31. D.F. Ward T.R. New A.L. Yen (2001) ArticleTitleEffects of pitfall trap spacing on the abundancerichness and composition of invertebrate catches J. Insect Conserv. 5 47–53 Occurrence Handle10.1023/A:1011317423622

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. A.H. Welsh R.B. Cunningham C.F. Donnelley D.B. Lindenmayer (1996) ArticleTitleModelling abundance of rare species: statistical models for counts with extra zeros Ecol. Model. 88 297–308 Occurrence Handle10.1016/0304-3800(95)00113-1

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Baker, S.C., Barmuta, L.A. Evaluating spatial autocorrelation and depletion in pitfall-trap studies of environmental gradients. J Insect Conserv 10, 269 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10841-006-0016-8

Download citation

Keywords

  • Coleoptera
  • Edge effects
  • Spatial structure
  • Species abundance pattern
  • Transects