Amazon Phase Report 093 June-September 2009

Global Vision International,
XXXXX Report Series No. 00X

ISSN XXXX-XXXX (Print)
GVI Ecuador
Rainforest Conservation and Community

Development
Phase Report 093

June 26th – September 4th 2009
GVI Ecuador/Rainforest Conservation and Community Development
Expedition Report 093
`
Submitted in whole to
Global Vision International
Yachana Foundation
Museo Ecuatoriano de Ciencias Naturales (MECN)
Produced by
Chris Beirne – Field Staff

Samantha Brimble – Field Staff
Jonathon Escolar – Previous Field Manager
Matt Iles - Field Staff
Andrew Whitworth – Field Manager
and
Leeron Tagger Field Staff Bonnie Mappin Volunteer

Ali Quinney Intern Kate Martin Volunteer
Matthew Allen Volunteer Stuart McKie Volunteer
Kate Barnett Volunteer Nina Moledina Volunteer
Patricia Browne Volunteer Thomas Mower Volunteer
Elodie Camprasse Volunteer Adrian Murdock Volunteer
Sophie Curnock Volunteer Lindy O’Connor Volunteer
Rebecca Dudley Volunteer Natalie Pitts Volunteer
Amy Dutton Volunteer Emily Porter Volunteer
Anne Catherine-Geering Volunteer Emma Redwood Volunteer
Guy Holmes Volunteer Victoria Shritliff Volunteer
Matt Kiff Volunteer Marius Somveille Volunteer
Emily Lambourne Volunteer Michael Thackwray Volunteer
Emma Landau Volunteer Yvonne Tissot-Dit-Sanfin Volunteer
Eduardo Lopez Volunteer
Edited by
Karina Berg – Country Director
GVI Ecuador/Rainforest Conservation and Community Development

Address: Casilla Postal 17-07-8832
Quito, Ecuador
Email: ecuador@gviworld.com
Web page: http://www.gvi.co.uk and http://www.gviusa.com
Executive Summary
This report documents the work of Global Vision International’s (GVI) Rainforest
Conservation and Community Development Expedition in Ecuador’s Amazon region and
run in partnership with the Yachana Foundation, based at the Yachana Reserve in the
province of Napo. During the third phase of 2009 from Friday 26th June to Friday 4th
September, GVI has:
 Added 15 new species to the reserve species list, including four birds, one snake, two
lizards, one dung beetle and nine butterflies.
 Continued the bird project investigating the avifauna associated with the road running
through the Yachana Reserve.
 Continued to collect a wealth of data for the amphibian and reptile surveying program,
using pitfall trapping and visual encounter surveys.
 Conducted a new project investigating the effects of disturbance from the road upon
butterfly communities.
 Continued with English lessons for local school children in Puerto Rico throughout their
summer vacation period.
 Welcomed two students from the Yachana Technical High School to join the expedition
for a five week period each, in order to exchange language skills, knowledge and
experience.
 Visited Yasuní National Park and Sumak Allpa, an island reserve and school run by a
local conservationist.
 Completed a project investigating the history and poaching problems of the reserve
involving interviews with various local Ecuadorians such as villagers and rangers from
the Yachana Reserve.
iii
Table of Contents
List of Figures.................................................................................................................. v
List of Tables ................................................................................................................... v
1 Introduction .................................................................................................................. 6
2 Avian Research.......................................................................................................... 9
2.1 Introduction ....................................................................................................... 9
2.2 Methods ............................................................................................................ 9
2.3 Results............................................................................................................ 10
2.4 Discussion ...................................................................................................... 11
2.4.1 Road Transects ........................................................................................... 11
2.4.2 Mist Netting.................................................................................................. 12
3 Mammal Incidentals ................................................................................................. 12
3.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................... 12
3.3 Sightings ......................................................................................................... 13
4.6 Results ........................................................................................................... 18
4.6.1 Species Encountered in 093 ........................................................................ 18
4.6.4 Species Encountered Overall in the Project So Far:..................................... 18
4.7 Discussion ...................................................................................................... 23
5 Butterfly Research ................................................................................................... 24
5.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................... 24
5.2 Methods .......................................................................................................... 25
5.3 Results............................................................................................................ 26
5.4 Discussion ...................................................................................................... 27
7 Participatory Mapping Project ..................................................................................... 33
7.1 Introduction and Rationale .............................................................................. 33
7.2 Participatory Mapping Methods....................................................................... 34
7.3 Results and Discussion................................................................................... 34
7.4 Conclusions and Further Development of Project ........................................... 37
8 Community Development Projects.............................................................................. 38
8.1 Colegio Técnico Yachana (Yachana Technical High School) .......................... 38
8.2 TEFL at Puerto Rico ....................................................................................... 39
9 Future Expedition Aims ............................................................................................ 39
10 References ............................................................................................................... 40
10.1 General references ...................................................................................... 40
10.2 Field Use References ................................................................................... 41
10.3 Dung Beetle References ............................................................................... 42
10.4 Amphibian References.................................................................................. 43
10.5 Butterfly References ..................................................................................... 45
Appendix A: Species List ............................................................................................... 47
Appendix B: Species Data For Dung Beetles ................................................................ 54
Appendix C: Maps Of The Yachana Reserve With Keys ............................................... 59
Appendix D: Yachana Reserve Map .............................................................................. 63
iv
List of Figures
Figure 1.1 – Map of Ecuador, with GVI Amazon location.
Figure 2.1 - Pie chart showing breakdown in families of individuals recorded.
Figure 2.2 - Number of species and individuals observed at different distances along the
road.
Figure 4.1 - The relative percentages of reptiles found within the pitfall traps (until
September 2009).
Figure 4.2 - The relative percentages of amphibians found within the pitfall traps (until
September 2009).
Figure 4.3 - The relative percentages of reptiles found from visual encounter surveys (until
September 2009).
Figure 4.4 - The relative percentages of amphibians found from visual encounter surveys
(until September 2009).
List of Tables
Table 4.1: Number of individuals found in pitfalls traps in 093
Table 4.2: Number of individuals found on visual encounter surveys in 093
Table 4.3: Number of individuals found in pitfall traps in total in the project so far
Table 4.4: Number of individuals found in total for visual encounter surveys in the project
so far
Table 4.5 – Simson’s index of diversity for the 10 visual encounter transects.
Table 4.6 - Simson’s index of diversity for the 12 pitfall sites.
Table 5.1 – New butterfly species identified in the Yachana reserve

Table 6.1: Habitat type of each dung beetle sampling site
Table 6.2: Data for the number of beetles caught at each site
Table 6.3: Data for the number of species caught at each site
v
1 Introduction
The Rainforest Conservation and Community Development expedition operated by Global

Vision International (GVI) is located at the Yachana Reserve in the Napo province in the
Amazonian region of Ecuador. Yachana Reserve is a legally designated Bosque Protector
(Protected Forest), consisting of approximately 1800 hectares of predominantly primary
lowland rainforest, as well as abandoned plantations, grassland, riparian forest,
regenerating forest and a road. The Yachana Reserve is owned and managed by the
Yachana Foundation.
GVI Amazon
Rio Napo, Napo Province
Fig. 1.1
6
The Yachana Foundation is dedicated to finding sustainable solutions to the problems
facing the Ecuadorian Amazon region. The foundation works with rainforest communities
to improve education, develop community-based medical care, establish sustainable
agricultural practices, provide environmentally sustainable economic alternatives, and
conserve the rainforest. The Yachana Reserve is the result of the Foundation’s efforts to
purchase blocks of land for the purpose of conservation. The Yachana Foundation is
developing a long-term plan of sustainable management for the reserve according to
International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) protected forest guidelines and
guidelines laid out by the Ministerio del Ambiente (Ecuadorian Ministry of the
Environment). One of GVI’s main roles at the reserve is to provide support where deemed
necessary for the development of the management plan. This includes reserve boundary
determination, baseline biodiversity assessments, visitor information support, and research
centre development.
GVI also works closely with the Yachana Technical High School, a unique educational
facility for students from the surrounding region. The high school provides students with
meaningful education and practical experience in sustainable agriculture, animal
husbandry, conservation, eco-tourism, and small business operations. As part of their
experiential learning program, students use the Yachana Reserve and GVI’s presence as
a valuable educational tool. As part of their conservation curriculum, the students visit the
reserve to receive hands on training in some of GVI’s research methodology, as well as
familiarization with ecological systems. On a rotational basis, students spend time at the
reserve where they participate in the current research activities, and receive
conversational English classes from GVI volunteers.
GVI additionally conducts English classes (Teaching English as a Foreign Language-

TEFL) at the nearby village of Puerto Rico, twice a week. Classes are prepared the day
before and last for one hour. Groups of two or three volunteers conduct the classes,
covering relevant topics to the local school children. This allows GVI to integrate with the
local community, whilst giving volunteers the opportunity to experience firsthand
involvement in community development through teaching English. This is also currently
laying the foundation to introduce environmental education programmes to the Puerto Rico
community in the future.
7
GVI also works with local research institutions. The Museo Ecuatoriano de Ciencias
Naturales, MECN, (Ecuadorian Museum for Natural Sciences) provides technical
assistance with field research and project development. The museum is a government
research institution which houses information and conducts research on the presence and
distribution of floral and faunal species throughout Ecuador. GVI obtains their investigation
permit with the support of MECN for the collection of specimens. The data and specimens
collected by GVI are being lodged with the MECN in order to make this information
nationally and internationally available, and to provide verification of the field data. MECN
technicians are continuously invited to the Yachana Reserve to conduct in-field training
and education for GVI and Yachana students, as well as explore research opportunities
otherwise unavailable.
A major goal for GVI’s research is to shift focus from identifying species in the reserve to
collecting data for management concerns and publication. In collaboration with all local
and international partners, GVI focuses its research on answering ecological questions
related to conservation. With this in mind, several key goals have been identified:
 Cataloguing species diversity in the Yachana Reserve in relation to regional

diversity.
 Conducting long-term biological and conservation based research projects.
 Monitoring of biological integrity within the Yachana Reserve and the immediate
surrounding area.
 Publication of research findings in primary scientific literature.
 Solicitation of visiting researchers and academic collaborators.
 Identification of regional or bio-geographic endemic species or sub-species.
 Identification of species that are included within IUCN or Convention on
International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES)
appendices.
 Identification of keystone species important for ecosystem function.
 Identification of new species, sub-species, and range extensions.
 Identification of charismatic species that could add value in promoting the Yachana
Reserve to visitors.
8
In order to achieve the key goals, volunteers participate in five or ten weeks of each phase
and are trained by GVI personnel to conduct research on behalf of the local partners in
support of their ongoing work. This report summarises the scientific research and
community-based programmes conducted during the ten-week expedition from Friday 3rd
April to Friday 12th June 2009, at Yachana Reserve.
2 Avian Research
2.1 Introduction
GVI continues to monitor the avian communities within the reserve and to identify
additional bird species. Mist netting, road transects and incidental sightings are the
methods employed to record data. The aims of the mist-netting project have been altered
slightly however, and an updated project proposal is included in the appendix of this
report.
2.2 Methods
2.2.1 Road Transects
A line transect method of data collection was used to enable the production maps of
species distribution and the data can also be analysed to gain an estimate of population
densities. The road was marked every 20 metres and then divided into three separate
sections, lower, middle and upper, each 1200m in length. The transects were walked
between the hours of 0600 and 1000, then 1600 and 1800. The order and direction they
were walked in was randomly determined and they were covered at approximately 1km
per hour. All birds along, flying over and at a distance of less than 25m either side of the
road were recorded. Both visual and audio encounters were noted, as was the direction of
flight. Line transects are not usually implemented along established linear features such as
roads and footpaths as they can bias results (Sutherland, 1996). However, in this case the
road and its edges is the habitat we intended to survey, so this concern is not relevant.
2.2.2 Mist Netting
In order to collect individuals for identification and banding, mist netting was conducted.
Nets were opened during peak bird activity in the morning and afternoon. Mist netting
allows GVI to band individuals and identify less conspicuous species otherwise impossible
to observe with other methodologies. Conducted consitently over time, data can be
9
collected that identifies migratory species, and shifts in diversity and abundance.
Previously only two areas of the reserve were sampled - an open area of secondary forest
adjacent to grassland on the Ridge trail, and a stretch of primary forest located on the
Bloop trail. This has been expanded to include any other viable areas within the reserve.
2.3 Results
In total ten road transects were carried out, one on the lower section, three on the middle
section and six on the upper. 390 individuals were recorded from approximately 60
species. So far 1044 individuals from 30 families have been recorded. Figure 2.1 shows
the breakdown of recorded individuals into family groups. Swifts (apodidae) have been
excluded, as they are deemed to be extraneous from the road edge habitat.
Tyrannidae, 48, 5% Accipitridae, 33, 4%

Turdidae,
Trogonidae,
Troglodytidae, 3,2,2,
0%
0% 0% Bucconidae, 39, 4% Accipitridae
Trochilidae, 22, 2% Bucconidae
Tinamidae, 10, 1% Capitonidae, 13, 1%
Cathartidae, 7, 1%
Columbidae,
Contingidae,3,
4,0%
0% Capitonidae
Thraupidae, 52, 6% Cathartidae

Corvidae, 42, 5%
Columbidae
Contingidae
Thamnophilidae, 9, 1% Cuculidae,
Cracidae, 2,2,0%
0%
Dendrocolaptidae,
Emberizidae, 2, 0% 1, 0% Corvidae
Cracidae
Cuculidae
Falconidae, 5, 1%
Dendrocolaptidae
Ramphistidae, 76, 8%
Emberizidae
Hirundinidae, 96, 10% Falconidae
Hirundinidae
Icteridae
Rallidae, 1, 0%
Nyctibiidae
Parulidae
Picidae
Pipridae
Psittacidae
Rallidae
Ramphistidae
Psittacidae, 159, 17% Thamnophilidae
Thraupidae
Tinamidae
Trochilidae
Troglodytidae
Icteridae, 244, 26% Trogonidae
Pipridae, 3, 0% Turdidae
Picidae, 46, 5% Tyrannidae
Parulidae, 1, 4,
Nyctibiidae, 0%0%
Figure 2.1. Pie chart showing breakdown in families of individuals recorded.
10
100
90
80
70
60
50
No. of indvs.
40
No. of sp.
30
20
10
0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
10 30 50 70 90 10 30 50 70 90 10 30 50 70 90 10 30 50
0- 00- 00- 00- 00- 0-1 0-1 0-1 0-1 0-1 0-2 0-2 0-2 0-2 0-2 0-3 0-3 0-3
2 4 6 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34
Figure 2.2. Number of species and individuals observed at different distances along the
road.
2.3.2 Mist Netting
Mist-netting was conducted at three sites during the phase. A stretch of the Cascada Trail
was sampled during morning and afternoon sessions for five days during which 31
individuals from 12 different species were recorded.
A stretch of the Inca trail was monitored over a four day period and Threnetes niger was a
new species recorded at this site.
Finally the Ridge trail was surveyed for two days during both morning and afternoon
sessions. 15 individuals from eight species were recorded.
2.4 Discussion
This project has now reached a halfway point and sampling effort is equal along all three
transects.
11
As we were unable to obtain GIS software during the phase, the aim of plotting the points
along the road where the number of species and individuals were most abundant on maps
has not yet been possible.
Observer reliability continues to be a problem as some volunteers are not strong at field
identification, but provided a staff member is able to verify sightings the method is sound
enough. However, changes to the staff could adversely affect this further. The current
staff team is experienced and knowledgeable, therefore there is the possibility that new
staff members would not have the ability to identify birds to the standard of the current
team. It is recommended that this project be continued during the next two phases with the
aim of revealing annual trends in bird distribution and abundance. Also, the starting points
for the transects should be changed to avoid any potential observer bias that could arise
from always starting in the same place.
2.4.2 Mist Netting
The mist netting surveys were particularly valuable for catching and identifying species
otherwise difficult to detect or identify simply through observational methods. The two new
sites sampled only yielded one new species (Threnetes niger at the Inca site) but both
have promise and have helped highlight the fact that new sites can be relatively easily
sampled.
Avian survey work continues to focus on adding species to the reserve species list. It is
recommended that future expeditions focus on using the data more constructively and
using statistical indices to measure species richness and diversity. More mist netting
should also be conducted as these surveys are particularly productive at revealing that are
harder to detect.
3 Mammal Incidentals
3.1 Introduction
GVI continues to document mammal species activity in the reserve predominately through
incidental mammal and track sightings. This is confined to incidental recordings due to the
low occurrence of conspicuous diurnal mammals. Excessive mammal surveying is not
sufficiently productive.
12
3.2 Methods
All mammal species encountered outside of specific mammal surveys were recorded.
Incidental sightings can take place during any of the other survey or project work within the
reserve, or during long walks into the forest. At the time of each incidence the time,
location, date, species, and any other key characteristics or notes are taken and later
entered into a database in camp.
3.3 Sightings
During this phase various mammal species were recorded incidentally, during other survey
work or walks into the forest. Incidental sightings included encounters with the Amazon
Red Squirrel (Sciurus sp.), Black Agouti (Dasyprocta fuliginosa), Black-mantled Tamarins
(Saguinus nigricollis), Coatis (Nasua nasua), Kinkajou (Potos flavus), Night Monkeys
(Aotus sp.), Common Opossum (Didelphis marsupialis), Water Opossum (Chironectes
minimus) and Water Rat (Nectomys squamipes). Also recorded were one of the armadillo
species (on two separate occasions), a three-toed sloth (Bradypus sp.), and various
unidentified small rodents in the amphibian pitfall traps. An unidentified rabbit species
(Lagomorph) was also observed on the road.
4 Herpetological Research
4.1 Introduction
One of the key drivers of worldwide species loss is habitat change; defined as habitat
deforestation, fragmentation and deterioration (Urbina-Cardona, 2008). The rapid rate of
forest conversion in the Neotropics has been offset by large-scale expansion of secondary
forest, plantation and pastureland (Wright SJ, 2005; Gardner et al. 2007b). Despite the
increasingly dominant role of these degraded habitats in the tropical landscape, there is
little consensus within the scientific community about the extent of its conservation value
(Gardner et al. 2007c, Lo-Man-Hung1, et al. 2008). Wright & Muller-Landau (2006) predict
that the future loss of primary forest will be offset by regenerating secondary forest and
consequently suggest that the predicted loss of species due to habitat change may be
premature. However, there is currently a lack of empirical evidence to support the theory
that regenerating forests can fully support native forest species (Gardner 2007c).
13
Two recent multiple taxa assessments, conducted on the cubraca cacao plantations of
Bahia, Brazil (Pardini et al. IN PRESS) and eucalyptus plantations of the Jari forestry
project, Brazil (Barlow et al. 2007), found that responses to structural habitat change were
taxon specific. Barlow et al. (2007) found that four of the fifteen taxa analysed (trees and
lianas, birds, fruit feeding butterflies, and leaf litter amphibians) were found to decrease in
species richness with increasing habitat disturbance. However, five taxa (large mammals,
epigiec arachnids, lizards, dung beetles and bats) exhibit idiosyncratic responses to
habitat change (Barlow et al. 2007). Both studies concluded that responses to structural
habitat change will be species specific, not simply taxon specific. Analysis of a generalised
taxon response is likely to hide a higher level of species specific disturbance responses
which are important when designing conservation strategies (Barlow et al 2007; Pardini et
al. 2009). These studies highlight the importance of performing multiple taxa assessments
that are species specific relating to the conservation value of secondary and plantation
forests.
4.2 Problem Statement

The Neotropics are estimated to contain nearly 50% of the worlds amphibians (IUCN,
2007) and 32% of the worlds reptiles (Young et al. 2004), this equates to over 3000
species of each taxon. Within the continental Neotropics, the 17 countries in Central and
South America, there are 1685 species of amphibian and 296 species of reptiles
considered endangered. Amphibians and reptiles are considered to be the most
threatened groups of terrestrial vertebrates (J. Gardner 2007b). There have been many
factors implicated in threatening populations of amphibians and reptiles, including habitat
loss and change, the virulent Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis pathogen, climate change
(Whitfield et al. 2007), ultraviolet-B radiation (Broomhall et al. 2000), and agrochemical
contaminants (Bridges et al. 2000).
4.2.1 Current State of Amphibian and Reptile Research
Amphibians and reptiles are important primary, mid-level and top consumers in
Neotropical ecosystems; therefore, it is important to understand the responses of these
organisms to structural habitat change (Bell et al. 2006). Despite its apparent severity, the
amount of research time given to studying the impacts of habitat change on amphibian and
reptile populations is relatively low. This is especially true in the Neotropics which, despite
an estimated 89% of threatened species being affected by habitat loss, has only been the
14
subject of 10% of the world’s herpetological studies (Gardner et al 2007a). There is a
general consensus amongst herpetologists that the effect of structural habitat change on
determining amphibian and reptiles and distributions is limited (Pearman, 1997;
Krishnamurthy, 2003; Urbina-Cardona, 2006; Gardner et al, 2007b).
A recent global scale review of the state of amphibian and reptile research regarding
structural habitat change highlighted several serious deficiencies: i) There is currently a
strong study bias away from the Neotropics towards North America and Australia. ii)
Published studies report contradictory responses of amphibian and reptile populations to
habitat change. iii) There are several common limitations in study methodology and
analysis (Gardner et al. 2007a).
4.3 Aims Of The Research

 Assess the ability of secondary forest (abandoned cacao plantation) to
preserve leaflitter herpetofaunal richness, distribution and abundance in
comparison to primary forest habitat.
 Understand the effects of structural habitat change within the Neotropics.
 Identify the responses of different herpetofaunal groups/species to structural
habitat change.
4.4 Study Site
All research will be performed directly on, or in the area immediately surrounding, the
Yachana Reserve (see appended map). The reserve is situated within the Napo province
in the Amazonian region of Ecuador (0°5' 0"S/077° 13' 60"W; 300-350m altitude). The
Yachana Reserve is a legally-designated Bosque Protector (Protected Forest), consisting
of approximately 1800 hectares of predominantly primary lowland rainforest, as well as
abandoned plantations, grassland, riparian forest, regenerating forest and a road. The
reserve is owned and managed by the Foundation for Integrated Education and
Development (FUNEDISIN or Yachana Foundation). The reserve is surrounded by large
areas of pasture land, small active cacao farms and currently un-mapped disturbed
primary forest.
The road within the Yachana Reserve is a large stone and gravel based road which
dissects the primary forest to the north and the abandoned cacao plantations to the south.
15
Despite walking the road on a frequent basis, field staff have never come across any frogs
(dead or alive) on the road itself. A growing body of research suggests that roads can have
a negative impact on amphibian diversity (Cushman et al. 2006). They can decrease
dispersal, reduce genetic diversity and increase mortality. It is highly likely that the
amphibian populations south of the road will be have reduced access the breeding pools
within the primary region. Consequently the road is likely to affect the richness, distribution
and abundance of herpetofaunal assemblages in both primary and abandoned plantation
habitats. These affects must be considered when interpreting any data obtained.
4.5 Methods
Data will be collected over four seven week blocks from the 14th of April 2009 until the 14th
March 2010. Collecting throughout the year will allow us to determine if there is any
seasonal variation in herptofaunal assemblages.
The herpetofauna in the Yachana Reserve exhibit different breeding and non-breeding
habitats and varying vagility; therefore, no one method will be sufficient to study their
populations. Consequently, we will employ a combination of pitfall trapping and visual
encounter surveys. Using a combination of methods will allow us to describe a wider
assemblage of species than the use of a single method.
We will establish ten 75m transects in both the primary and abandoned cacao plantations.
Care will be taken to space transects sufficiently to avoid psuedoreplication. Transects will
be marked with coloured transect tape to avoid unnecessary habitat modification. Where
possible, the transects will be located at least 10m from streams and 100m from forest
edges to avoid biases resulting from increases in species richness and abundance, which
could result in confusion about the true effect of structural habitat change on amphibian
and reptile diversity.
4.5.1 Nocturnal and Diurnal Visual Encounter Surveys
Visual encounter surveys have been shown to be one of the most effective methods for
sampling tropical herpetofaunas (Bell et al, 2006). They have been repeatedly shown to
yield greater numbers of individuals per effort than other sampling methods in recent
publications (Ernst and Rodel, 2004; Donnelly et al 2005) and our own preliminary
16
investigations. Each transect will be searched by five/six observers (strip width = 6m,
expected duration = 1h 30m).
4.5.2 Pitfall Trapping
Twelve pitfall arrays will also be established as well as transects in both primary and
secondary forest. Each array will consist of four 25L buckets with 8m long by 50cm high
plastic drift fence connecting them in linear shaped design. When open, the pitfalls will be
checked at least once a day.
Particular care will be taken to ensure that sampling effort is equal for both primary and
secondary habitats. This will ensure maximum comparability in the resultant data sets.
Any amphibians or reptiles encountered through either method will be identified in the field
using available literature and released. Any individual which cannot be identified will be
taken back to the GVI base camp for further analysis. A small proportion of the capture
individuals, including those that cannot be identified, will be anaesthetised with Lidocaine
and fixed with 10% formalin. All preseserved specimins will be stored at the Museo
Ecuatoriano de Ciencias Naturales (MECN).
Surveying primary rainforest habitat is a privileged opportunity; however there is the

potential to negatively affect the ecosystem by passing infections between sites and
species. Good practices will be strictly adhered to so as to ensure transmissions are not
possible. This will be achieved by systematic cleaning of tools, equipment, and sterile bags
will be changed when handling different individuals. Under no circumstances will
amphibians or reptiles come in contact with exposed human skin tissue.
4.5.3 Habitat Feature Mapping
Each transect/pitfall array will be subjected to vegetation mapping following the guidelines
outlined by Museo Ecuatoriano de Ciencias Naturales (MECN) in Quito. The following
parameters will be estimated; upper canopy cover, height of upper canopy, height of
emergent’s, middle canopy coverage, middle canopy height, shrub density, herb density,
vine density, palm density, epiphyte density and fern density. Diameter at breast height
(dbh) and stem density will also be measured at each site, with the assumption that the
number of plants with small dbh is greater in degraded, secondary forests, whereas
17
primary forests show increasing numbers of plants of larger dbh (Pearman, 1997; Rodel et
al. 2004).
4.6 Results
4.6.1 Species Encountered in 093
During this phase, 469 identified reptile and amphibian individuals were encountered,
comprising 33 species of amphibian and 18 species of reptile.
4.6.2 Pitfalls in Expedition 093
Table 4.1: Number of individuals found in pitfalls in 093

Amphibians and Amphibians Reptiles
reptiles
Total primary 147 112 20
Total secondary 75 56 17
4.6.3 Visual Encounter Surveys (093)
Table 4.2: Number of individuals found on visual encounter surveys in 093

reptiles
(approx 810 mins survey
time with 5/6 searchers)

4.6.4 Species Encountered Overall in the Project So Far:
During the total project to date, 809 identified reptile and amphibian individuals were
encountered.
18
4.6.5 Pitfalls
Table 4.3: Number of individuals found in pitfall traps in total in the project so far
reptiles
When looking at Figure 4.1 we can see that the lizard Lepsoma parietale is by far the most
commonly encountered reptile in the pitfall traps (n=21). In total 13 different species have
been discovered using pitfall traps.
Tropidurus umbra Anolis nitens

ochrocollaris, 3, 5% scypheus, 3, 5%
Anolis fuscoauratus
Anolis nitens scypheus
Anolis trachyderma
Arthrosaura reticulata
Cercosaura argulus
Gonatodes concinnatus
Pseudogonatodes
Gonatodes humeralis
guianensis, 8, 15%
Kentropyx pelviceps
Kentropyx Leposoma parietale
pelviceps, 6, 11% Neusticurus ecpleopus
Pseudogonatodes guianensis
Taeniophallus brevirostris
Tropidurus plica
Tropidurus umbra ochrocollaris

Leposoma
parietale, 21, 39%
Figure 4.1 – The relative percentages of reptiles found within the pitfall traps (until
September 2009).
When looking at Figure 4.2 we can see that the Pristimantis ockendi complex is the most
commonly encountered amphibian in the pitfall traps (n=86). In total 22 different species
have been discovered using pitfall traps, in particular the group Pristimantis represents
19
seven of these and appear to be a group well targetd by pitfall trapping. The poison dart
frog Ameerga bilinguis is also commonly found (n=46).
Allobates zapero, Allobates zapero
17, 6% Ameerega bilinguis

Caecilia tentaculata
Colostethus marchesianus
Edalorhina perezi
Ameerega Engystomops petersi
Pristimantis bilinguis, 46, 15% Hypodactylus nigrovittatus
ockendeni Leptodactylus andreae

complex, 86, 28% Leptodactylus pentadactylus
Leptodactylus rhodomystax
Lithodytes lineatus
Oreobates quixensis
Hypodactylus Pristimantis altamazonicus
nigrovittatus, Pristimantis diadematus
27, 9% Pristimantis lanthanites

Pristimantis martiae
Pristimantis
Pristimantis ockendeni complex
lanthanites, 44,
15% Leptodactylus Pristimantis peruvianus
andreae, 12, 4% Pristimantis variabilis
Pristimantis Rhinella dapsilis

Leptodactylus
altamazonicus, 11, rhodomystax, 13, Rhinella margaritifera complex
4% 4% Rhinella marina
Figure 4.2 – The relative percentages of amphibians found within the pitfall traps (until
September 2009).
4.6.6 Visual Encounter Surveys

Table 4.4: Number of individuals found in total for visual encounter surveys in the project
so far
reptiles

When looking at Figure 4.3 we can see that the Anolis are the most commonly
encountered reptiles in visual encounter surveys (n=22). In total 10 different species have
20
been discovered using visual encounter surveys. The lizard Lepsoma parietale is also
commonly found (n=46).
Lepsoma Anolis fuscoauratus

parietale, 5, Anolis Anolis nitens scypheus
15% fuscoauratus, 7, Anolis trachyderma
20%
Attractus major
Gonatodes Anolis nitens
Enyalioides laticeps
humeralis, 2, 6% scypheus, 2,
6% Gonatodes concinnatus
Gonatodes humeralis
Imantodes cenchoa
Imantodes lentiferus
Anolis
trachyderma, 13, Lepsoma parietale
38%
Figure 4.3 - The relative percentages of reptiles found from visual encounter surveys (until
September 2009).
When looking at Figure 4.4 we can see that the Pristimantis ockendi complex is the most
commonly encountered amphibian in the visual encounter surveys (n=173). In total 27
different species have been discovered using visual encounter surveys, in particular the
group Pristimantis represents nine of these and appear to be a group also well
represented by visual encounter surveys. The poison dart frog Ameerga bilinguis is again
also commonly found (n=87), as is the Dwarf-climbing Salamander, Bolitoglossa peruviana
(n=53). However, we can see the benefit of the visual encounter surveys by the
encounters of arboreal species such as the Phyllomedusas, Osteocephalus and
Hypsiboas.
21
Pristimantis Allobates zapero
variabilis, 20, 5% Ameerega bilinguis
Bolitoglossa peruviana
Dendriphidion dendrophis
Dendrobates ventricuminatus
Edalorhina perezi
Engystomops petersi
Hypodactylus nigrovittatus
Hypsiboas boans
Ameerega bilinguis, Leptodactylus andreae
Leptodactylus mystaceus
87, 21%
Lithodytes lineatus
Oreobates quixensis
Pristimantis Osteocephalus deridens
ockendeni complex, Bolitoglossa Phyllomedusa tomopterna
173, 41% peruviana, 53, Phyllomedusa vaillantii
13% Pristimantis acuminatus
Pristimantis altamazonicus
Pristimantis conspicillatus
Pristimantis diadematus
Pristimantis lanthanites
Pristimantis martiae
Pristimantis ockendeni complex
Pristimantis peruvianus
Pristimantis variabilis
Pristimantis Rhinella dapsilis
Rhinella margaritifera complex
lanthanites, 20, 5%
Figure 4.4 - The relative percentages of amphibians found from visual encounter surveys
(until September 2009).
Tables 4.5 and 4.6 indicate that the sites on the top side of the road, which are loosly
termed as primary until the veg mapping data is analysed appear to have a higher species
diversity than the sites on the ‘secondary’ or bottom side of the road. Site S4 from the
visual encounter surveys has a relatively high species diversity in comparison to other
sites on the bottom half of the road (s=0.72). Site P5 from the pitfall surveys has a
particularly low species diversity (s=0.60) in comparison to other sites on the top side of
the road, whilst S1 is relatively high in relation (s=0.71).
Table 4.5 – Simpson’s index of diversity for the 10 visual encounter transects.
P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 S1 S2 S3 S4 S5
0.71 0.70 0.73 0.75 0.74 0.64 0.42 0.57 0.72 0.43
Table 4.6 - Simpson’s index of diversity for the 12 pitfall sites.
P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6
0.84 0.77 0.82 0.79 0.60 0.82 0.71 0.67 0.66 0.68 0.56 0.50
22
4.7 Discussion
Overall the amphibian and reptile work over the past ten weeks has proven very fruitful. A
large number of identified individuals have been found and some unidentified species have
been taken as voucher specimens for further observation and identification with other
experts within the Ecuadorian Amazon region.
Already the results are showing that some species are more prevalent than others and
there are certainly some differences in the numbers and types of species found within
different areas of the reserve. We have also gathered data on vegetation types which can
be used to look at these differences in greater detail. The amphibians Ameerga bilinguis,
Pristimantis ockendeni, Pristimantis lanthanites, Bolitoglossa peruvianus (Dwarf-climbing
Salamanders) and the lizard Lepsoma parietale appear to be good generalist species,
found in greater numbers than other species at various habitat types around the reserve. It
may also be that these species are the ones best targeted by the survey methods used
within this study.
We can already see differences in the species compositions from the clear variation in the
diversity index from secondary and primary sites. Site S4 on the visual encounter surveys
which actually came out as quite a high diversity is a site situated at the top end of the
Cascada Trail which appears to be a largely undisturbed patch of forest upon initial
appearance. Site P5 from the pitfalls is a site situated on the top side of the road and is
very close in proximity to an area of invasive grassland and disturbed habitat whilst S2 is a
site situated relatively close to a stream and may result and may account for these
differences in relation to other results from their respective sides of the road. This will
become clearer once the vegetation mapping and weather data is analysed further. We
will then also begin to understand why these differences in species composition occur and
discover which factors relate to this variation.
The methods used within the past ten weeks will continue into the next phase so that
changes in species assemblages can be observed over an annual period of time.
The resultant analysis which will be used when a greater amount of data has been
gathered will involve multivariate analysis such as principal component analysis and also
decision tree analysis that may be applied to the development of a model used to
23
determine the types of amphibians and reptiles found in specific habitat types. In the next
ten weeks aswell as continuing the work so far we will also begin to collect weather data
regarding microclimatic conditions at each of the particular sites. We also intend to begin
identifying the different morphological types of the Pristimantis ockendeni complex and
recording where they are found. This may give us some idea if distinct morphological types
of Pristimantis ockendeni complex are found within restricted areas of the reserve, or
spread throughout.
5 Butterfly Research
5.1 Introduction
Butterflies are widely regarded as important ecological indicators due to dependence of
the larval stage on a specific host plant, combined with adult pollinating roles (Ehrlich and
Raven, 1965). Herbivorous species are considered to indicate the diversity and health of
their habitats as they may closely reflect patterns of diversity in, as well as disturbances to,
plant species (DeVries and Walla, 1999; Sparrow et al. 1993). Due to this, they may be
used to predict patterns in other taxonomic groups.
Road systems sharply define and fragment forest ecosystems, resulting in changes to
plant species composition and structure from road edges to the surrounding interior
(Bennett, 1991). The presence of roads and trails opens up the forest canopy, creating
light gaps, modifying plant communities and resources available for other species.
Butterfly communities have been shown to be sensitive to environmental variables, such
as sunlight, gaps and edges (Ramos, 2000). Sparrow et al. (1994) found 74% more
butterfly species along a road transect than in undisturbed forest.
The Yachana Reserve comprises approximately 1800 hectares of predominantly primary

lowland rainforest in addition to a matrix of abandoned plantations, grassland, riparian and
regenerating forest. A road 15m wide runs through the middle of the reserve, connecting it
to the surrounding agricultural landscape. In addition to this, there are a number of trails on
either side of the road which are walked regularly by individuals and groups of up to eight
volunteers. This presents an excellent opportunity to investigate the effects of disturbance
from the road, in addition to making paired comparisons between disturbed trails and
nearby undisturbed forest transects. Sparrow et al. (1994) recommend including both
24
disturbed and undisturbed habitat types in monitoring programs investigating butterfly
community variation.
5.2 Methods
We established a series of 200m transects on the Columbia and Frontier trails with
sampling sites every 50m. The Columbia and Frontier trails run roughly perpendicular to
the road and receive heavy usage from both GVI and locals. Each sampling site was
paired with an undisturbed site located 75m perpendicular to the trail in the forest to
assess the impact of the trails on fruit-feeding nymphalid butterfly communities. Traps 1-10
were located on Frontier while traps 11-20 were on Columbia. Odd numbered traps were
on the trails while the even numbered traps were in the forest.
Two baited traps were suspended with the base hanging approximately 1.5 meters above
the ground at each sampling site. The traps were baited and maintained for 14
consecutive days and checked daily in the afternoon. New bait was added to the traps on
the third day of sampling. The bait, consisting of mashed, fermented bananas, was
prepared following the methods of DeVries and Walla (1999).
Captured butterflies were identified in the field by GVI volunteers and staff. When
identification in the field was not possible, photos of the specimen where taken and/or the
specimen was brought back to camp for further study. During the first week of trapping,
butterflies were marked on the hindwing with non-toxic permanent marker and replaced in
the traps in order to measure escape rates. If the butterfly was still present in the trap after
24h, it was released. Butterflies captured in the second week of trapping were marked with
a dot code on the hindwings (one dot for trail sites, two for forest sites) and released to
identify recaptures.
In order to explore the nymphalid-vegetation relationship, vegetation was mapped using

the point-centered quarter method (Cottam and Curtis, 1956). Ten quartered points were
established along cardinal points at each sampling site for trees with a diameter at breast
height above 20 cm. The coverage of the canopy was assessed within four categories: 1-
25%, 25-50%, 50-75% and 75-100%. Horizontal vegetation coverage was estimated at
each sample point by an observation made on a 50 cm2 piece of paper held 10 m from the
observer in each quarter.
25
5.3 Results
Overall, 277 individuals were captured over the 14-day period with a total of 82 different
species. The most common species found were Nessea hewitsoni (10.8%), Tigridia acesta
(7.2%), Archaeopropena demophon (7.2%), Colobura annulata (6.1%). Ten new species
were identified over the sampling period (Table 5.3.1). A number of unidentified species
were also found including eleven species from the subtribe Euptychiini, a Catonephele
species, three Morpho species/subspecies and a Hamadryas species. Additionally, we
identified four previously unknown species in the reserve: Nessea batesii, Coeruleuptychia
lobelia, Magneuptychia fugitive and Cissia tiessa.
Table 5.1 – New butterfly species identified in the Yachana Reserve
Genus Species Trap site GPS Date

S 00°83.044' W077°24.504'
Euptychia labe Trap 2a 9/08/09
S 00°83.044' W077°24.504'
Euptychia renata Trap 2b 9/08/09
S 00°82.918' W077°24.382'
Catoblepia berecynthia Trap 9a 10/08/09
S 00°82.918' W077°24.382'
Taygetis sosis Trap 9a 12/08/09
S 00°82.891' W077°24.672'
Taygetis cleopatra Trap 18b 14/08/09
S 00°83.001' W077°24.426'
Caligo illioneus Trap 6a 16/08/09
S 00°83.080' W077°24.382'
Ectima thecla lerina Trap 11b 21/08/09
S 00°82.950' W077°24.664'
Taygetis echo Trap 17b 20/08/09
S 00°83.080' W077°24.382'
Cissia hermes Trap 11b 21/08/09
26
5.4 Discussion
In general, the two week sampling period was quite successful. We identified a large
number of individuals and found several new species. Specimens and photos of the
unidentified species have been preserved for future identification.
The first week of re-trapping captured butterflies, along with observation in the field,
permitted us to assess escape rates from the traps. Morpho and Archaeopropena sp. are
quite adept at escaping from the traps once they have entered. Nessea sp. are very
strongly attracted to the banana bait, do not escape from the traps once captured and are
often recaptured once released.
This project will continue using the same methods in the next phase to acquire a larger
sample size. Currently, we have not sampled enough individuals to conduct an in-depth
statistical analysis to test our hypotheses. Vegetation mapping will also be completed in
the next phase.
6 Dung Beetle Research
6.1 Introduction
Dung beetles (Order Coleoptera, Family Scarabaeidae, Subfamily Scarabaeinae) are
broadly recognised as a good indicator of habitat quality (Spector & Forsyth, 1998). Dung
beetle assemblages can be easily investigated using baited pitfall traps. They are a useful
target group for investigating spatial and temporal patterns of biodiversity. By burying dung
on which adults and larvae feed upon, dung beetles act as secondary seed dispersers,
accelerate nutrient recycling rates, increase plant yield and regulate vertebrate parasites
(Mittal, 1993; Andresen, 1999). Significant relationships have been found to exist between
the numbers of mammals at study sites, and the richness of species and individuals of
dung beetles (Estrada et al., 1998).
Habitat fragmentation is one of the most widespread and pervasive human activities
impacting upon the earth’s dwindling tropical rainforest habitats. Fragmentation reduces
total habitat area and creates subpopulations of species which are isolated from one
another, in turn disrupting individual and population behaviour (Hanski et al., 1995). In
addition, exchange of genes between populations, species interactions and subsequently
27
ecological processes are reduced (Aizen & Feinsinger, 1994; Saunders et al., 1991).
Fragmentation also modifies physical conditions, creating habitat edges that are different
from habitat interiors (Diamond, 1975). It has been estimated that the area of Amazonian
rainforest modified by such edge effects exceeds the area that has been cleared by felling
(Skole & Tucker, 1994).
At the Yachana Reserve there is a unique opportunity to investigate variation in habitat

type and fragmentation upon dung beetle communities. As already mentioned the reserve
consists of a patchwork of varying habitat types, comprising approximately 1800 hectares
of predominantly primary lowland rainforest, in addition to abandoned plantations,
grassland, riparian forest, regenerating forest and a road. The reserve also acts as a
fragment of primary lowland rainforest in the context of the larger landscape, as it borders
an agricultural matrix on two sides and the Napo River on another.
6.2 Methods
Ten sampling sites were chosen at random and marked throughout Yachana Reserve
during the phase 092. Each site contained four baited pitfall traps, each positioned on the
corner of a 50m x 50m grid, in order to minimize trap interference and the effect of wind
upon trap detectability (Larsen and Forsyth, 2005). Five sites were placed within primary
rainforest and five within the secondary matrix. This allowed direct comparisons to be
made between these two habitat types, whilst also permitting comparisons of the five sites
within the primary rainforest and secondary matrix. The location and the habitat type of
each site is shown in Table 6.1. During the phase 093 each site was exposed for two
replicable trapping periods. Trapping periods were 48 hours in duration and included
checks after 24 hours to ensure that traps had not been disturbed. Individual trap catches
were pooled together for each site. Between two and four sites were exposed at any one
time, in random combinations, so as to minimize the effect of weather variability upon
overall catch data.
Each trap comprised of a container 130cm in diameter and 100cm deep with a dung bait
ball suspended above it. Containers were placed in a hole in the ground so that the top
was flush with the surrounding soil, thus allowing beetles to fall into the trap. All leaf litter
and vegetation was removed in a 25cm radius around each trap, as this was found during
preliminary investigations to affect trap efficiency (See Phase Report 091). Traps were
28
filled with about an inch of water containing scent-free liquid detergent in order to reduce
surface tension and therefore prevent beetles from escaping. Fresh dung, used as bait,
was collected from a horse on the morning of baiting the traps. About 30g of bait was
suspended in muslin netting 5cm above the lip of each trap, held in place by string and
suspended at the end of an angled stick stuck into the ground. A plate was positioned 5cm
above the top of the bait ball using three upright sticks, in order to prevent rain and beetles
from landing directly on the dung bait.
Table 6.1: Habitat type of each dung beetle sampling site
Site Habitat Type

DB1 Primary rainforest
DB6 Secondary rainforest
DB7 Grassland with intermittent trees, bordered by secondary forest
DB8 Grassland with intermittent trees, bordered by secondary forest
DB9 Recovering cacoa plantation
DB10 Secondary forest, with human disturbance and buildings
6.3 Results
During the phase 093 each of ten sampling sites was exposed to two 48 hours trapping
sessions. In total 1567 beetles were captured, comprising 26 different species from nine
different genera. Nine of these species were relatively common, occurring regularly. For
five of these species only one individual was encountered, whilst for two species, only two
individuals were encountered.
29
Table 6.2: Data for the number of beetles caught at each site
Site Trial 1 Trial 2 Average

DB1 89 28 58.5
DB2 69 93 81.0
DB3 49 86 67.5
DB4 147 79 113.0
DB5 233 54 143.5
Primary 92.7
DB6 137 119 128.0
DB7 71 20 45.5
DB8 92 13 52.5
DB9 58 139 98.5
DB10 20 23 21.5
Secondary 69.2
Table 6.2 summarizes the number of beetles caught at each site. Trial 1 and 2 refer to
each of the 48 hour trapping periods. Numbers represent a pooled result for the beetles
captured in four traps located at each sampling site. An average result of the two trapping
periods is shown, as is an average for all trapping sessions using the primary rainforest
and secondary matrix sampling sites. Between all sites there appears to be a high amount
of variation, including between the primary forest and secondary matrix sites. The smallest
number of beetles caught in any one trapping period occurred in the grassland site DB8.
Notably this trial was subject to some trap flooding. At the opposite end of the spectrum,
DB5 in the primary rainforest harboured 233 beetles in one trapping sessions. High yields
of 147 (DB4), 137 (DB6) and 139 (DB9) individuals occurred in sites in both the primary
rainforest and the secondary matrix.
Average number of individuals captured within the primary rainforest varies between 58.5
at DB1 and 143.5 at DB5. In the secondary matrix this variation is between 128 at DB6
(secondary rainforest) and 21.5 at DB10 (located around the GVI base camp). The overall
average for the secondary matrix was 69.2, less than that of the primary rainforest, 92.7.
30
Table 6.3: Data for the number of species caught at each site
Site Trial 1 Trial 2 Average
DB1 9 8 8.5
DB2 9 7 8.0
DB3 9 13 11.0
DB4 6 10 8.0
DB5 9 8 8.5
Primary 8.8
DB6 8 16 12.0
DB7 6 7 6.5
DB8 10 4 7.0
DB9 7 11 9.0
DB10 7 8 7.5
Secondary 8.4
Table 6.3 summarizes the number of beetles caught at each site. As with the data for
numbers of beetles, Trial 1 and 2 refer to each of the 48 hour trapping periods, and
numbers represent a pooled result for the beetles captured in four traps located at each
sampling site. An average result of the two trapping periods is shown, as is an average for
all trapping sessions using the primary rainforest and secondary matrix sampling sites.
The number of species found also varied both within and between sites, with a high of 16
species and a low of four species. Notably, DB6, which harboured 16 species in one
trapping session, also yielded eight species in the other. This average of 12.0 species was
the highest recorded for any site.
Overall averages for the primary rainforest and the secondary matrix were similar; 8.8 and
8.4 respectively. However, in the primary rainforest, average species numbers for each
site were more consistent, with four of the five sites harbouring between 8.0 and 8.5
species on average. Despite a similar overall average in the secondary matrix, there was
more variation between sites, with site averages falling between 6.5 and 12.0. Due to this,
it could be argued that the primary rainforest sampling sites consistently yielded higher
numbers of species per trapping period.
6.4 Discussion
The overall pattern so far is one of high variation between sites in terms of number of
beetles per trapping session, whereas number of species show less variation. At least this
31
is what is indicated by overall averages for primary rainforest and secondary matrix sites.
Upon closer inspection of the data, numbers of beetles caught is generally higher in the
primary rainforest sites, reflected in the overall average of 92.7. No doubt affecting this
result are some particularly low yields within the secondary matrix; particularly the
grassland sites and DB10, located around the GVI base camp. This indicates that habitat
type must have an effect on results. This could be argued to be due to trap efficiency
rather than number of individuals present in the site, for example due to grass within close
proximity to traps reducing bait attraction distance. Number of species is arguably also
higher in the primary rainforest sites. Despite overall averages for the primary rainforest
and the secondary matrix being similar (8.8 and 8.4 respectively), average species
numbers for the primary rainforest sites were consistently higher.
The next phase of this project must see the vegetative mapping of each of the sites. Using
a method employed in the current butterfly research at Yachana Reserve, estimations of
tree density can take place. Coupled with estimations of canopy cover and horizontal
vegetation cover, this will allow quantitative data on the vegetation present at each site to
be collected. If this is compared alongside the number of species and number of
individuals per trapping period data, a better indication may be provided of the differences
between each site, and between the primary rainforest and the secondary matrix.
Phase 094 must also see the collection of more dung beetle data. Exposing each site for a
further 48 hours will improve the overall dataset, and will also help to take into account
seasonal variation in the dung beetle community. Following this, correlation analysis may
occur to determine patterns of individual species occurrences between the sites. In the
future, the project also has scope to ask more ecologically focused questions. This may
include examining bait preferences in the dung beetle communities; for example, various
dung types including vertebrate carrion, invertebrate carrion, rotting fruit and fungus. There
is also an opportunity to examine abundance and trap attraction distances (see Larsen &
Forsyth, 2005), through mark and recapture methods.
32
7 Participatory Mapping Project
7.1 Introduction and Rationale

The Bosque Protector Yachana consists of a matrix of primary and secondary forest, and
pasture. However this habitat matrix has never been fully mapped and is of considerable
significance to ongoing research conducted by GVI within the reserve. Also of significance
from a conservation perspective is the current land-use of areas immediately surrounding
the reserve, which likewise had never been recorded.
The reserve consists of 36 individual lots, each previously owned and managed by a
different person. The reserve was formed over the course of approximately ten years as
these lots were bought out and consolidated into one protected area by the Yachana
Foundation. By ascertaining how each lot was formerly used it is possible to construct a
picture of how the reserve as a whole was affected by the former land-uses contained in it
and to plot a representation of the current resulting habitat matrix. Similarly, the privately
owned lots surrounding the reserve can have present land-use data plotted in the same
way. Data for land-use both within and outside the reserve was collected by conducting
semi-structured interviews with relevant local stakeholders.
Participatory mapping provides a rapid and cost-effective way of generating data about
land-use. In many cases it may also be the only way to obtain certain kinds of information
that is not officially registered. While the data may not be one hundred percent accurate, in
terms of time and money compared to alternative methods such as GIS mapping and
remote sensing via satellite images, participatory mapping is highly desirable for a scale of
operation such as at GVI Yachana. Another advantage offered by this technique is the
necessity of community engagement, which can help foster improved relations and lay the
foundations for further collaboration and participation.
Therefore in an effort to address this lack of information and at the same time build closer
relationships with the local community of Puerto Rico, GVI decided to undertake a
participatory mapping project of the reserve and the surrounding areas.
33
7.2 Participatory Mapping Methods
Relatively little equipment is needed for participatory mapping, especially in its initial
phase. Maps of the reserve detailing the former demarcations of lot boundaries were
obtained and printed out on A3 sized paper on which stakeholders would plot information
in response to certain questions by the interviewer with an assortment of different coloured
pencils.
The first step was to identify local stakeholders who could provide the type of information
required. The lots within the reserve were formerly owned by members of the Puerto Rico
community, located to the east of the Yachana Reserve. After talks with members of the
community two people emerged as obvious candidates to interview. One was Don
Segundo Sanchez, who has lived in the community since its inception and owns a
considerable amount of land immediately adjacent to the reserves eastern boundary; and
Don Sergio Santana, president of the community and resident since 1980. Don Sergio was
also a former owner of a lot now within the reserve. These two participants were
questioned about the current land-use to the east of the reserve, and Don Sergio was able
to provide the information about former land-uses within it.
Information about the current land-use to the north and west of the reserve was obtained
through interviews with Isaac Luna, the reserve manager, and Piter Silvera, the reserve
ranger and resident of Babahoyo community, situated to the north of Yachana. Finally Don
Abdon, the former ranger was consulted on matters about illegal activity such as hunting,
grazing and logging within the reserve.
In response to the questions each participant plotted information on separate maps

detailing the extent of pasture, plantations and primary forests within and outside the
reserve, and indicated areas where illegal activities were a problem. This information was
then synthesised to produce the maps contained in the following section.
7.3 Results and Discussion
Three maps were created from data collected during the interviews with local stakeholders
(see Appendix C).
34
Map 1. Former land-use within the reserve
This map allows us to understand the current distribution of habitat types found within the
reserve from a historical perspective, as former plantations now equate to secondary
forest, pastures typically remain pastures although they may vary in their level of shading,
and primary forest have obviously been unaffected by human impact.
Lots 1 – 7 were the first to be sold to the Yachana Foundation as one block in the years
1992/1993. These lots, or farms, are known as segundo linea, or second line farms, as
they are the second row of lots back from the river, i.e. they do not border the river. Those
that do border the river are called primera linea. These second line farms were not as
popular as they could only be reached on foot. Likewise, produce obtained from them and
equipment needed for them could only be moved in or out by foot. In addition, trails
providing access to them had to be cut through the dense primary forest. The primary
forest on these lots was impacted very little. For the most part forest was only cleared on
the front corners of the lots, where small plantations were established. Rather than for
delivering any commercial value these small plots were established in order to demarcate
clearly the boundaries between each lot. Only lot 5 was worked on more intensively where
an area of forest was cleared to create pasture, which can still be found today on upper
Frontier trail.
The front line lots were sold to the Yachana Foundation individually over the course of
approximately ten years from 1993 – 2003 to consolidate what is now the reserve, as the
former owners were apparently more reluctant to sell than those who owned the second
line lots. This was because these lots were more established, productive and profitable
than the ones behind them. As a result more primary forest in these lots had been cleared
to make way for plantations and pasture. The pattern this took is evident on the map. The
front edge of the lots close to the riverbank had been replaced by plantations of crops such
as coffee, cacao, bananas and other fruits. This is now secondary forest habitat and is
prevalent along the Ridge and Agua Santa trails in the southern part of the reserve.
Behind this line of plantations primary forest was often removed completely to create
pasture for cattle. A grass species native to Chile and Argentina was planted to provide
grazing. Pasture is not a natural habitat to the area, so the farmers who owned the lots
were very meticulous in making sure it established. Wherever a seedling from the dormant
seed bank below ground would germinate on the newly created pastures, the farmers
35
would immediately remove them, thus preventing the grass from being shaded out and the
pasture reverting to secondary forest. This continued practise caused the seed bank to
become depleted, allowing the grass cover to become thicker until it became impenetrable
to new growth. As a result much of the pasture remains in the same state it was when
grazed by cattle. Tackling this and helping the forest regenerate in these areas is one of
the key areas being addressed through the reserve management plans.
Map 2. Current land-use outside the reserve and illegal activities within it.
This map shows that there are significant areas of primary forest abutting the reserve
boundaries, particularly on the eastern and western sides. To the north only information on
one further lot was collected, showing that the majority of it is still primary forest. However,
the interview with Piter Silvera revealed that lots to the north of this are predominantly
cleared and used for agricultural production, as they form the community of Babahoyo.
Within the reserve illegal hunting is mainly a problem along the road and close to a few
fruit trees that attract animals to them. Don Abdon, Piter Silvera and Isaac Luna all
confirmed that hunters occasionally visit the reserve, usually from communities such as
Cruzchicta that are further away from the reserve itself. They arrive by road, typically on
motorbikes which they conceal by the side of the road, and enter the forest on foot. Other
local people may be opportunistic hunters as they pass through the reserve.
Illegal grazing is only a problem in lots 27-30 in the south-eastern part of the reserve. The
problem is caused by cattle belong to Don Dimas, which enter the reserve from his lot and
graze on the abandoned pasture located in this area. This issue has been addressed with
Don Dimas a number of times. He claims that GVI personnel pass through his land to visit
the market at Agua Santa and leave the gates open, thus permitting his cattle to escape
into the reserve and graze the pasture there. We know this to be untrue, however. In order
to try and prevent this and remove this excuse, GVI personnel no longer use this route to
the market. A reforestation programme has also begun on the pasture within the reserve.
Coffee plant seedlings have been planted in order to shade out the grass and help this
area through succession to recover as a more ecologically beneficial secondary forest,
and of less use to cattle.
36
Timber extraction is a less extensive problem. Although it may infrequently occur along the
boundaries of the reserve, the main area in which it has been identified is again in the area
bordering Don Dimas’ lot. There was apparently some confusion regarding the
demarcation of the borders in that area and as a result a number of large trees were felled
within the reserve limits. Subsequently a sustained effort has been applied to marking the
reserve borders clearly around the whole reserve, an activity GVI personnel have been
heavily involved with. It is also suspected that some trees bordering the area of grassland
in lots 27-30 have been felled by Don Dimas to prevent the edges of the pasture being
shaded out and diminishing in size.
Map 3. Former land-use within and current land-use outside the reserve combined
This combined map was created in order to gauge how much primary forest cover remains
in the land immediately surrounding the reserve in relation to its area. This is of great
ecological significance as habitat fragmentation and reduced overall habitat size are
crucial factors in the conservation of sustainable populations. The primary forest
surrounding the reserve will not only act as a buffer zone protecting the species living
within it, it will effectively increase the area of viable habitat for many species and thus
potentially support larger, healthier populations. Also marked on this map is the GVI trail
system in order to provide some perspective.
7.4 Conclusions and Further Development of Project
This mapping technique yielded some interesting and important information very quickly.
Ideally more interviews would have been carried out with different stakeholders in order to
cross check some of the information. It proved difficult to locate more participants
however, as the interviews were conducted in July and August, when many families from
the adjacent communities are away planting crops in their more remote plots of land.
It is widely accepted that local knowledge can be of great importance to researchers. One
aspect of local knowledge that was only touched upon during the interviews and not
documented here is that of plant and animal distributions. Many members of the
community have decades of experience of the reserve and know where certain trees and
plants of ecological importance are located. Many animals are dependent on fruiting trees,
so knowledge of where they are and when they are likely to fruit is very important for
37
tracking them. It is recommended that an interview and guided walk within the reserve be
carried out with Don Sergio Santana to plot trees and other features of importance.
Aside from the useful information generated, community ties with Puerto Rico were also
greatly enhanced during this project. Importantly, GVI were readily accepted and indeed
considered as members of the community. There was also substantial interest in GVI and
our activities and therefore scope to include the community in more of our activities. Great
progress has already been made to this end, as GVI has participated in a minga and a
number of football matches with the community. It is also recommended that a pilot
programme of participatory monitoring be implemented. To do this a volunteer from the
community, potentially somebody young who wishes to practice their English, could be
designated to meet with GVI once a week or once a fortnight to report what species had
been seen where. Depending on the success of this scheme it could be expanded to other
members of the community or be given more of a scientific focus rather than simple
incidental sightings.
Ultimately it is hoped that through participation and engaging people in conservation work,
by providing a useful service to the community through English teaching in the local
primary school and offering manpower to help with community mingas, the importance of
the reserve will be recognised and this sentiment diffused and embedded throughout the
communities in the area.
8 Community Development Projects
8.1 Colegio Técnico Yachana (Yachana Technical High School)
GVI continues to work closely with the Yachana Technical High School. Two current
students from the Yachana Technical High School came to join the expedition for a period
of five weeks each. They participated in all aspects of the expedition, including survey
work, camp duty and satellite camps. Conversation sessions for language exchange are
also arranged between the students and volunteers or staff. The students are of great
assistance during field work, sharing their knowledge about local uses for plants as well as
helping with the scheduled work. They also share their culture with volunteers and allow a
greater insight into their background, teaching traditional basket-weaving, traditional
38
achiote-painting. It is hoped that these exchanges will continue in the future as they are
beneficial to GVI volunteers and staff, and of course to the students themselves.
8.2 TEFL at Puerto Rico
Formal English classes were provided by volunteers and staff for one hour on Tuesdays
and Thursdays, to schoolchildren of the neighbouring community of Puerto Rico despite
the fact that the school term had finished for the summer. Our relationship with Puerto
Rico is continuing to grow and strengthen, and GVI is looking to provide environmental
education programmes to the community in the future as part of the conservation work that
we do here. Classes this phase focused on the idea of creating a diary type model that
could be implemented in the next expedition and will allow an amalgamation of topics and
improve the childrens abilities to construct sentences.
9 Future Expedition Aims

 The biodiversity programme will be continued, opportunistically re-surveying sites, and
expanding the survey areas within the reserve.
 Avian research will continue, focusing on mist netting and the development of a new
project and proposal based upon identifying the species found around fruiting trees in
the reserve and their behaviour.
 Herpetological research will continue, repeating pitfall trapping and visual encounter
surveys, and incorporating the collection of environmental data (temperature, humidity,
air flow and light levels) at each of the surveying sites, so that specific climatic
conditions can be compared.
 Continue the butterfly project examining the effects of road and trail disturbance upon
fruit feeding species, in relation to changes in vegetation.
 Continue the dung beetle research based upon communities found in the reserve will
commence, whilst also incorporating some preliminary work based upon seed
dispersal abilities of various species.
 GVI will continue to participate in exchanges with the Yachana Technical High School.
 TEFL at Puerto Rico will continue with a defined focus for each ten week block, for
each age group and the aim is to encourage students to put their learning into practise
and get them conversing in English.
39
10 References
10.1 General references
Allen, T., Ginkbeiner, S.L., and Johnson, D.H., 2004. Comparison of detection rates of
breeding marsh birds in passive and playback surveys at Lacreek National Wildlife refuge,
South Dakota. Waterbirds 27, 277-281.
Bennett, A. F., 1991. Roads, roadsides and wildlife conservation: A review. In: Saunders,
D. A., Hobbs, R. J. (eds.). Nature Conservation 2: The role of corridors. Chipping Norton,
NSW, Australia: Surrey Beatty 99-118.
Daszak, P., Berger, L., Cunningham, A.A., Hyatt, A.D., Green, D.E., Speare. R., 1999.
Emerging infectious diseases and amphibian population declines. Emerging Infectious
Diseases. 5, 735-48.
Ehrlich, P. R., Raven, P. H., 1965. Butterflies and plants: A study in co-evolution. Evolution
18: 586-608.
Gardner T.A., Fitzherbert E.B., Drewes R.C., Howell K.M., Caro T., 2007. Spatial and
temporal patterns of abundance and diversity of an east African leaf litter amphibian fauna.
Biotropica 39(1):105-113.
Heyer W.R., Donnelly M.A., McDiarmid R.W., Hayek L.A.C., Foster M.S., 1994. Measuring
and Monitoring Biological Diversity - Standard Methods for Amphibians.
Kroodsma, D.E., 1984. Songs of the Alder Flycatcher (Empidonax alnorum) and Willow
Flycatcher (Empidonax traillii) are innate. Auk 101, 13-24.
Lacher, T., 2004. Tropical Ecology, Assessment, and Monitoring (TEAM) Initiative: Avian
Monitoring Protocol version 3. Conservation International, Washington, DC.
www.teaminitiative.org.
Menendez-Guerrero P.A., Ron S.R. and Graham C.H., 2006. Predicting the Distribution
and Spread of Pathogens to Amphibians. Amphibian Conservation 11:127-128.
Ridgely, R.S., Greenfield, P.J., 2001. The birds of Ecuador. Volume I. Status, Distribution,
and Taxonomy. Cornell University Press, New York.
40
Sutherland, W.J., 1996. Ecological census techniques: a handbook. University press,
Cambridge.
Weldon, C., du Preez, L.H., Hyatt, A.D., Muller, R., Speare, R., 2004. Origin of the
amphibian chytrid fungus. Emerging Infectious Diseases. 10 (Issue 12).
10.2 Field Use References
Bartlett, R.D., Bartlett, P., 2003. Reptiles and amphibians of the Amazon. An ecotourist’s
guide. University Press of Florida, Gainsville.
Bollino, M., Onore G., 2001. Butterflies & moths of Ecuador. Volume 10a. Familia:
Papilionidae. Pontificia Universidad Católica del Ecuador, Quito.
Carrera, C., Fierro, K., 2001. Manual de monitoreo los macroinvertebrados acuáticos.
EcoCiencia, Quito.
Carrillo, E., Aldás, S., Altamirano, M., Ayala, F., Cisneros, D. Endara, A., Márquez, C.,
Morales, M., Nogales, F, Salvador, P., Torres, M.L., Valencia, J., Villamarín, F., Yánez, M.,
Zárate, P., 2005. Lista roja de los reptiles del Ecuador. Novum Milenium, Quito.
de la Torre, S., 2000. Primates of Amazonian Ecuador. SIMBIOE, Quito.
DeVries, P.J., 1997. The butterflies of Costa Rica and their natural history. Volume II:
Riodinidae. Princeton University Press, Princeton.
Duellman, W.E., 1978. The biology of an equatorial herpetofauna in Amazonian Ecuador.

The University of Kansas, Lawrence.
Eisenberg, J.F., Redford, K.H., 1999. Mammals of the Neotropics: The central Neotropics.
Volume 3 Ecuador, Peru, Bolivia, Brazil. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Emmons, L.H., Feer, F., 1997. Neotropical rainforest mammals. A field guide, second
edition. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Moreno E., M., Silva del P., X., Estévez J., G., Marggraff, I., Marggraff, P., 1997.
Mariposas del Ecuador. Occidental Exploration and Production Company, Quito.
Neild, A.F.E., 1996. The butterflies of Venezuela. Meridain Publications. London.

41
Ridgely, R.S., Greenfield, P.J., 2001. The birds of Ecuador. Volume I. Status, distribution
and taxonomy. Christopher Helm, London.
Ridgely, R.S., Greenfield, P.J., 2001. The birds of Ecuador. Volume II. A field guide.
Christopher Helm, London.
Tirira S., D., 2001. Libro rojo de los mamíferos del Ecuador. SIMBIOE/EcoCiencia, Quito.
10.3 Dung Beetle References

Aizen, M. A. & Feinsinger, P. (1994). Forest fragmentation, pollination and plant
reproduction in Chago dry forest, Argentina. Ecology 75: 330-351.
Andresen, E. (1999). Seed dispersal by monkeys and the fate of dispersed seeds in the
Peruvian rain forest. Biotropica 31: 145-158.
Diamond, J. M. (1975). The island dilemma: lessons of modern biogeographic studies for
the design of natural reserves. Biological Conservation 7: 129-146.
Estradsa, A., Coates-Estrada, R., Dadda, A. A. & Cammarano, P. (1998). Dung and
carrion beetles in tropical rainforest fragments and agricultural habitats at Los Tuxtlas,
Mexico. Journal of Tropical Ecology 14: 577-593.
Hanski, I., Pakkala, T., Kuussaari, M. & Lei, G. (1995). Metapopulation persistence of an
endangered butterfly in a fragmented landscape. Oikos 72: 21-28.
Larsen, T. H. and Forsyth, A. (2005). Trap spacing and transect design for dung beetle
biodiversity studies. Biotropica 37: 322-325.
Mittal, I. C. (1993). Natural manuring and soil conditioning by dung beetles. Tropical
Ecology 34: 150-159.
Saunders, D. A., Hobbs, R. J. & Margules, C. R. (1991). Biological consequences of

ecosystem fragmentation: a review. Conservation biology 5: 18-32.
Skole, D. L. & Tucker, C. (1994). Tropical deforestation and habitat loss fragmentation in
the Amazon: satellite data from 1978-1988. Science 260: 1905–1910.
42
Spector, S. & Forsyth, A. B. (1998). Indicator taxa for biodiversity assessment in the
vanishing tropics. Conservation Biology Series 1: 181-209.
10.4 Amphibian References
J. Barlow, T. A. Gardner, I. S. Araujo, T. C. Avila-Pires, A. B. Bonaldo, J. E. Costa, M. C.

Esposito, L. V. Ferreira, J. Hawes, M. I. M. Hernandez, M. S. Hoogmoed, R. N. Leite, N. F.
Lo-Man-Hung, J. R. Malcolm, M. B. Martins, L. A. M. Mestre, R. Miranda-Santos, A. L.
Nunes-Gutjahr, W. L. Overal, L. Parry, S. L. Peters, M. A. Ribeiro-Junior, M. N. F. da Silva,
C. da Silva Motta, and C. A. Peres (2007) Quantifying the biodiversity value of tropical
primary, secondary, and plantation forests PNAS vol. 104 no. 47 18555–18560
Beebee, T.J.C., Griffiths, R.A., (2005). The amphibian decline crisis: A watershed for
conservation biology? Biological Conservation 125, 271–285.
K. E. Bell and M. A. Donnelly (2006) Influence of Forest Fragmentation on Community

Structure of Frogs and Lizards in Northeastern Costa Rica Conservation Biology Volume
20, No. 6, 1750–1760
Bridges, C.M., Semlitsch, R.D., (2000). Variation in pesticide tolerance of tadpoles among
and within species of Ranidae and patterns of amphibian decline. Conservation Biology
14, 1490–1499.
Broomhall, S.D., Osborne, W.S., Cunningham, R.B. (2000). Comparative effects of

ambient ultraviolet-B radiation on two sympatric species of Australian frogs. Conservation
Biology 14, 420–427.
Samuel A. Cushman (2006) Effects of habitat loss and fragmentation on amphibians: A

review and prospectus Biological Conservation 128; 231 –240
Donnelly, M. A., M. H. Chen, and G. C.Watkins. (2005) Sampling amphibians and reptiles
in the Iwokrama Forest ecosystem. Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences of
Philadelphia 154:55–69.
Toby A. Gardner*, Jos Barlow, Carlos A. Peres (2007a) Paradox, presumption and pitfalls
in conservation biology: The importance of habitat change for amphibians and reptiles
Biological Conservation 138; 166–179
43
T. A. Gardner, M.A.Ribeiro-Junior, J. Barlow, T. S. Avila-Pires, M.S. Hoogmeod and C. A.
Peres (2007b) The Value of Primary, Secondary, and Plantation Forests for a Neotropical
Herpetofauna Conservation Biology Vol 21, 3; 775–787
T. A. Gardner, J. Barlow, L. W. Parry, and C. A. Peres (2007c) Predicting the Uncertain

Future of Tropical Forest Species in a Data Vacuum BIOTROPICA 39(1): 25–30 2007
Gibbons, J. W., Scott, D. E., Ryan, T. J., Buhlmann, K. A., Tuberville, T. D., Metts, B. S.,
Greene, J. L., Mills, T., Leiden, Y., Poppy, S. and C. T. Winne. 2000. The global decline of
reptiles, deja-vu amphibians. Bioscience 50: 653–667.
S.V. Krishnamurthy (2003) Amphibian assemblages in undisturbed and disturbed areas of

Kudremukh National Park, central Western Ghats, India Environmental Conservation 30
(3): 274–282
P. B. Pearman (1997) Correlates of Amphibian Diversity in an Altered Landscape of

Amazonian Ecuador Conservation Biology, Volume 11, No. 5 Pages 1211–1225
R. Pardini, D. Faria, G. M. Accacio, R. R. Laps, E. Mariano-Neto,

M. L.B. Paciencia, M. Dixo, Julio Baumgarten (2009) The challenge of maintaining Atlantic
forest biodiversity: A multi-taxa conservation assessment of specialist and generalist
species in an agro-forestry mosaic in southern Bahia Biological Conservation 142; 1170-
1182
M. Rödel & R. Ernst (2004) MEASURING AND MONITORING AMPHIBIAN DIVERSITY IN

TROPICAL FORESTS. I. AN EVALUATION OF METHODS WITH RECOMMENDATIONS
FOR STANDARDIZATION Ecotropica 10: 1–14,
Sala, O.E., Chapin, F.S.I., Armesto, J.J., Berlow, E., Bloomfield, J., Dirzo, R., Huber-
Sanwald, E., Huenneke, L.F., Jackson, R.B., Kinzig, A., Leemans, R., Lodge, D.M.,
Mooney, H.A., Oesterheld, M., Poff, N.L., Sykes, M.T., Walker, B.H., Walker, M., Wall,
D.H., (2000). Global biodiversity scenarios for the year 2100. Science 287, 1770–1774.
Stuart, S.N., Chanson, J.S., Cox, N.A., Young, B.E., Rodrigues, A.S.L., Fischman, D.L.
and Waller, R.W. (2004). Status and trends of amphibians declines and extinctions
worldwide. Science 306: 1783-1786.
44
J. N. Urbina-Cardona, M. Olivares-Pe´rez, V. H. Reynoso (2006) Herpetofauna diversity
and microenvironment correlates across a pasture–edge–interior ecotone in tropical
rainforest fragments in the Los Tuxtlas Biosphere Reserve of Veracruz, Mexico Biological
Conservation 132; 61–75
J. N. Urbina-Cardona (2008) Conservation of Neotropical Herpetofauna: Research Trends
and Challenges Tropical Conservation Science Vol.1(4):359-375
Wright SJ (2005) Tropical forests in a changing environment Trends Ecol Evol 20:553–
560.
Whitfield SM, Pierce MSF (2005) Tree buttress microhabitat use by a neotropical leaf-litter
herpetofauna. Journal of Herpetology 39:192-198.
Whitfield SM, Bell KE, Philippi T, Sasa M, Bolanos F, Chaves G, Savage JM, DonnellyMA
(2007) Amphibian and reptile declines over 35 years at La Selva, Costa Rica Proc Natl
Acad Sci 104:8352–8356.
Young, B.E., Stuart, S.N., Chanson, J.S., Cox, N.A., Boucher, T.M., 2004. Disappearing
Jewels: The Status of New World Amphibians. Natureserve, Arlington, VA.
10.5 Butterfly References
Bennett, A. F., 1991. Roads, roadsides and wildlife conservation: A review. In: Saunders,
D. A., Hobbs, R. J. (eds.). Nature Conservation 2: The role of corridors. Chipping Norton,
NSW, Australia: Surrey Beatty pp. 99-118.
Cottam, G., Curtis, J.T., 1956. The use of distance measures in phytosociological
sampling. Ecology 37: 451-460.
DeVries, P. J., Walla, T. R., 1999. Species diversity in spatial and temporal dimensions of
fruit-feeding butterflies from two Ecuadorian rainforests. Biological Journal of the Linnean
Society 68: 333-353.
Ehrlich, P. R., Raven, P. H., 1965. Butterflies and plants: A study in co-evolution. Evolution
18: 586-608.
45
Ramos, A. F., 2000. Nymphalid butterfly communities in an Amazonian forest fragment.
Journal of Research on the Lepidoptera 35:29-41.
Sparrow, H. R., Sisk, T. D., Ehrlich, P. R., Murphy, D. D., 1994. Techniques and guidelines
for monitoring neotropical butterflies. Conservation Biology. 8: 800-809.
46
Appendix A: Species List (** = new species found this phase)
Class Aves Gruiformes Trochilidae Hummingbirds
Tinamiformes Rallidae Rails, Gallinules, and Coots Amazilia franciae cyanocollis Andean Emerald Hummingbird
Tinamidae Tinamous Anurolimnatus castaneiceps Chestnut-headed Crake Amazilia fimbriata Glittering-throated Emerald
Crypturellus bartletti Bartlett's Tinamou Aramides cajanea Gray-necked Wood-Rail Anthracothorax nigricollis Black-throated Mango
Crypturellus cinereus Cinereous Tinamou Campylopterus largipennis Gray-breasted Sabrewing
Crypturellus soui Little Tinamou Columbiformes Campylopterus villaviscensio Napo Sabrewing
Crypturellus undulatus Undulated Tinamou Columbidae Pigeons and Doves Eriocnemis vestitus Glowing Puffleg
Crypturellus variegatus Variegated Tinamou Claravis pretiosa Blue Ground-Dove Eutoxeres condamini Buff-tailed Sicklebill
Tinamus major Great Tinamou Columba plumbea Plumbeous Pigeon Glaucis hirsuta Rufous -breasted Hermit
Geotrygon montana Ruddy Quail-Dove Heliothryx aurita Black-eared Fairy
Ciconiformes Leptotila rufaxilla Gray-fronted Dove Heliodoxa aurescens Gould's Jewelfront
Ardeidae Herons, Bitterns and Egrets Phaethornis bourcieri Straight-billed Hermit
Ardea cocoi Cocoi Heron Psittaciformes Phaethornis hispidus White-bearded Hermit
Bubulcus ibis Cattle Egret Psittacidae Parrots and Macaws Phaethornis malaris Great-billed Hermit
Butorides striatus Striated Heron Amazona farinosa Mealy Amazon Threnetes niger** Pale-tailed Barbthroat**
Egretta caerulea Little Blue Heron Amazona ochrocephala Yellow-crowned Amazon Thalurania furcata Fork-tailed Woodnymph
Egretta thula Snowy Egret Ara severa Chestnut-fronted Macaw
Tigrisoma lineatum Rufescent Tiger-Heron Psittacidae Cont. Parrots and Macaws Trogoniformes
Aratinga leucophthalmus White-eyed Parakeet Trogonidae Trogons and Quetzals
Cathartidae American Vultures Aratinga weddellii Dusky-headed Parakeet Pharomachrus pavoninus Pavonine Quetzal
Cathartes aura Turkey Vulture Pionites melanocephala Black-headed Parrot Trogon melanurus Black-tailed Trogon
Cathartes melambrotus Greater Yellow-headed Vulture Pionopsitta barrabandi Orange-cheeked Parrot Trogon viridis Amazonian White-tailed Trogon
Coragyps atractus Black Vulture Pionus menstruus Blue-headed Parrot Trogon collaris Collared Trogon
Sarcoramphus papa King Vulture Pionus chalcopterus Bronze-winged Parrot Trogon rufus Black-throated Trogon
Pyrrhura melanura Maroon-tailed Parakeet Trogon violaceus Amazonian Violaceous Trogon
Falconiformes Trogon curucui Blue-crowned Trogon
Kites, Eagles, Hawks, and
Accipitridae Osprey Cuculiformes
Buteo magnirostris Roadside Hawk Cuculidae Cuckoos and Anis Coraciiformes
Buteo polyosoma Variable Hawk Crotophaga ani Smooth-billed Ani Alcedinidae Kingfishers
Elanoides forficatus Swallow-tailed Kite Crotophaga major Greater Ani Chloroceryle amazona Amazon Kingfisher
Harpagus bidentatus Double-toothed Kite Piaya cayana Squirrel Cockoo Chloroceryle americana Green Kingfisher
Ictinia plumbea Plumbeous Kite Piaya melanogaster Black-bellied Cuckoo Chloroceryle inda Green and Rufous Kingfisher
Leptodon cayanensis Gray-headed Kite Megaceryle torquata Ringed Kingfisher
Leucopternis melanops Black-faced Hawk Opisthocomidae Hoatzin
Leucopternis albicollis White Hawk Opisthocomus hoazin Hoatzin Momotidae Motmots
Pandion haliaetus Osprey Baryphthengus martii Rufous Motmot
Strigiformes Electron platyrhynchum Broad-billed Motmot
Falconidae Falcons and Caracaras Strigidae Typical Owls Momotus momota Blue-crowned Motmot
Daptrius ater Black Caracara Glaucidium brasilianum Ferruginous Pygmy-Owl
Falco rufigularis Bat Falcon Lophostrix cristata Crested owl Tyrannidae Tyrant Flycatchers
Ibycter americanus Red-throated Caracara Otus choliba Tropical Screech-Owl Attila spadiceus Bright-rumped Attila
Herpetotheres cachinnans Laughing Falcon Otus watsonii Tawny-bellied Screech-owl Colonia colonus Long-tailed Tyrant
Micrastur gilvicollis Lined Forest-Falcon Pulsatrix perspicillata Spectacled owl Conopias cinchoneti Lemon-browed Flycatcher
Micrastur semitorquatus Collared Forest-Falcon Conopias parva Yellow-throated Flycatcher
Milvago chimachima Yellow-headed Caracara Caprimulgiformes Contopus virens Eastern Wood-Pewee
Nyctibiidae Potoos Hemitriccus zosterops White-eyed Tody-tyrant
Galliformes Nyctibius aethereus Long-tailed Potoo Legatus leucophaius Piratic Flycatcher
Curassows, Guans, and
Cracidae Chachalacas Nyctibius grandis Great Potoo Leptopogon amaurocephalus Sepia-capped Flycatcher
Nothocrax urumutum Nocturnal Curassow Nyctibius griseus Common Potoo Lipaugus vociferans Screaming Piha
Ortalis guttata Speckled Chachalaca Megarynchus piangu Boat-billed Flycatcher
Penelope jacquacu Spix's Guan Caprimulgidae Nightjars and Nighthawks Myiarchus tuberculifer Dusky-capped Flycatcher
Nyctidromus albicollis Pauraque Myiarchus ferox Short-crested Flycatcher
Odontophoridae New World Quails Nyctiphrynus ocellatus Ocellated Poorwill Myiobius barbatus Whiskered Flycatcher
47
Odontophorus gujanensis Marbled Wood-Quail Myiodynastes maculatus Streaked Flycatcher
Apodiformes Myiodynastes luteiventris Sulphur-bellied Flycatcher
Charadriiformes Apodidae Swifts Mionectes oleagineus Ochre-bellied Flycatcher
Sandpipers, Snipes and
Scolopacidae Phalaropes Chaetura cinereiventris Grey-rumped Swift Myiozetetes granadensis Gray-capped Flycatcher
Actitis macularia Spotted Sandpiper Streptoprocne zonaris White-collared Swift Myiozetetes luteiventris Dusky-chested Flycatcher
Tringa solitaria Solitary Sandpiper Myiozetetes similis Social Flycatcher
Piciformes Ochthornis littoralis Drab Water-Tyrant
Recurvirostridae Plovers and Lapwings Galibulidae Jacamars Pachyramphus marginatus Black-capped Becard
Hoploxypterus cayanus Pied Plover Jacamerops aureus Great Jacamar Pitangus sulphuratus Great Kiskadee
Terenotriccus erythrurus Ruddy-tailed Flycatcher Rhynchocyclus olivaceus Olivaceous Flatbill
Tityra cayana Black-tailed Tityra Rhytipterna simplex Grayish Mouner
Tityra inquisitor Black-crowned Tityra
Bucconidae Puffbirds
Tyrannidae cont Tyrant Flycatchers Chelidoptera tenebrosa Swallow-winged Puffbird
Tityra semifasciata Masked Tityra Bucco macrodactylus Chestnut-capped Puffbird Myrmeciza immaculata Sooty Antbird
Todirostrum chrysocrotaphum Yellow-browed Tody-Flycatcher Malacoptila fusca White-chested Puffbird Myrmeciza melanoceps White-shouldered Antbird
Tolmomyias poliocephalus Gray-crowned Flatbill Monasa flavirostris Yellow-billed Nunbird Myrmotherula axillaris White-flanked Antwren
Tolmomyias viridiceps Olive-faced Flatbill Monasa morphoeus White-fronted Nunbird Myrmotherula hauxwelli Plain-throated Antwren
Tyrannulus elatus Yellow-crowned Tyrannulet Monasa nigrifrons Black-fronted Nunbird Myrmotherula longipennis Long-winged Antwren
Tyrannus savana Fork-tailed Flycatcher Notharchus macrorynchos White-necked Puffbird Myrmotherula ornata Ornate Antwren
Tyrannus tyrannus Eastern Kingbird Myrmotherula obscura Short-billed Antwren
Tyrannus melancholicus Tropical Kingbird Capitonidae New World Barbets Myrmornis torquata Wing-banded Antbird
Zimmerius gracilipes Slender-footed Tyrannulet Capita aurovirens Scarlet-crowned Barbet Myrmothera campanisona Thrush-like Antpitta
Capita auratus Gilded Barbet Phlegopsis erythroptera Reddish-winged Bare-eye
Cotingidae Cotinga Eubucco bourcierii Lemon-throated Barbet Phlegopsis nigromaculata Black-spotted Bare-eye
Ampelioides tschudii Scaled Fruiteater Pithys albifrons White Plumbed Antbird
Cotinga cayana Spangled Cotinga Ramphastidae Toucans Thamnomanes ardesiacus Dusky-throated Antshrike
Cotinga maynana Plum-throated Cotinga Pteroglossus azara Ivory-billed Aracari Thamnophilus murinus Mouse-colored Antshrike
Gynnoderus foetidus Bare-necked Fruitcrow Pteroglossus castanotis Chestnut-eared Aracari Thamnophilus schistaceus Plain-winged Antshrike
Iodopleura isabellae White-browed Purpletuft Pteroglossus inscriptus Lettered Aracari Schistocichla leucostigma Spot-winged Antbird
Querula purpurata Purple throated Fruitcrow Pteroglossus pluricinctus Many-banded Aracari
Ramphastos vitellinus Channel-billed Toucan Thraupidae Tanagers
Pipridae Manakins Ramphastos tucanus White-throated Toucan Chlorophanes spiza Green Honeycreeper
Chiroxiphia pareola Blue-backed Manakin Selenidera reinwardtii Golden-collared Toucanet Cissopis leveriana Magpie Tanager
Chloropipo holochlora Green Manakin Creugops verticalis Rufous-crested Tanager
Dixiphia pipra White-crowned Manakin Picidae Woodpeckers and Piculets Cyanerpes caeruleus Purple Honeycreeper
Lepidothrix coronata Blue-crowned Manakin Campephilus melanoleucos Crimson-crested Woodpecker Dacnis flaviventer Yellow-bellied Dacnis
Machaeropterus regulus Striped Manakin Campephilus rubricollis Red-necked Woodpecker Euphonia laniirostris Thick-billed Euphonia
Manacus manacus White-bearded Manakin Celeus elegans Chestnut Woodpecker Euphonia rufiventris Rufous-bellied Euphonia
Pipra erythrocephala Golden-headed Manakin Celeus flavus Cream-coloured Woodpecker Euponia xanthogaster Orange-bellied Euphonia
Tyranneutes stolzmanni Dwarf Tyrant Manakin Celeus grammicus Scale-breasted Woodpecker Euphonia chrysopasta White-lored Euphonia
Chrysoptilus punctigula Spot-breasted Woodpecker Habia rubica Red-crowned Ant-Tanager
Corvidae Crows, Jays, and Magpies Dryocopus lineatus Lineated Woodpecker Hemithraupis flavicollis Yellow-backed Tanager
Cyanocorax violaceus Violaceous Jay Melanerpes cruentatus Yellow-tufted Woodpecker Paroaria gularis** Red-capped Cardinal**
Picumnus lafresnayi Lafresnaye's piculet Piranaga olivacea Scarlet Tanager
Vireonidae Vireos Veniliornis fumigates Smoky-brown Woodpecker Piranaga rubra Summer Tanager
Vireo olivaceus Red-eyed Vireo Veniliornis passerinus Little Woodpecker Ramphocelus carbo Silver-beaked Tanager
Ramphocelus nigrogularis Masked Crimson Tanager
Turdidae Thrushes Passeriformes Tachyphonus cristatus Flame-crested Tanager
Catharus ustulatus Swainson's Thrush Furnariidae Ovenbirds Tachyphonus surinamus Fulvous-crested Tanager
Turdus albicollis White-necked Thrush Ancistrops strigilatus Chestnut-winged Hookbill Tangara callophrys Opal-crowned Tanager
Turdus lawrencii Lawrence's Thrush Automolus rubiginosus Ruddy Foliage-gleaner Tangara chilensis Paradise Tanager
Cinammon-rumped Foliage-
Philydor pyrrhodes gleaner Tangara mexicana Turquoise Tanager
Sclerurus caudacutus Black-tailed Leaftosser Tangara nigrocincta** Masked Tanager**
Hirundinidae Swallows and Martins Tangara schrankii Green-and-gold Tanager
48
Atticora fasciata White-banded Swallow Dendrocolaptidae Woodcreepers Tangara xanthogastra Yellow-bellied Tanager
Stelgidopteryx ruficollis Southern rough-winged swallow Dendrexetastes rufigula Cinnamon-throated Woodcreeper Tersina viridis Swallow Tanager
Tachycineta albiventer White-winged Swallow Dendrocincla fuliginosa Plain Brown Woodcreeper Thraupis episcopus Blue-gray Tanager
Glyphorynchus spirurus Wedge-billed Woodcreeper Thraupis palmarum Palm Tanager
Troglodytidae Wrens Lepidocolaptes albolineatus Lineated Woodcreeper
Saltators, Grosbeaks and
Campylorhynchus turdinus Thrush-like Wren Xiphorhynchus ocellatus Ocellated Woodcreeper Cardinalidae Cardinals
Donacobius atricapillus Black-capped Donacobius Xiphorhynchus guttatus Buff-throated Woodcreeper
Henicorhina leucosticta White-breasted Wood-wren Xiphorhynchus picus Straight-billed Woodcreeper Cyanocompsa cyanoides Blue-black Grosbeak
Microcerculus marginatus Southern Nightingale-Wren Saltator grossus Slate-colored Grosbeak
Thryothorus coraya Coraya Wren Thamnophilidae Typical Antbirds Saltator maximus Buff-throated Saltator
Cercomacra cinerascens Gray Antbird
Polioptilidae Gnatcatchers and Gnatwrens Chamaeza nobilis Striated Antthrush Emberizidae Emberizine Finches
Microbates cinereiventris Tawny-faced Gnatwren Dichrozona cincta Banded Antbird Ammodramus aurifrons Yellow-browed Sparrow
Frederickena unduligera Undulated Antshrike Oryzoborus angloensis Lesser Seed-Finch
Parulidae New World Warblers Formicarius analis Black-faced Antthrush
Basileuterus fulvicauda Buff-rumped Warbler Hersilochmus dugandi Dugand's Antwren Fringillidae Cardueline Finches
Dendroica fusca Blackburnian Warbler Hylophlax naevia Spot-backed Antbird Carduelis psaltria Lesser Goldfinch
Dendroica striata Blackpoll Warbler Hylophylax poecilinota Scale-backed Antbird
Hypocnemis cantator Warbling Antbird
Hypocnemis hypoxantha Yellow-browed Antbird
Megastictus margaritatus Pearly Antshrike
Myrmeciza hyperythra Plumbeous Antbird
Vespertilionidae Vespertilionid Bats

Icteridae American Orioles and Blackbirds Myotis nigricans Little brown bat
Cacicus cela Yellow-rumped Cacique
Cacicus haemorrhaus** Red-rumped Cacique** Primates Monkeys
Cacicus solitarius Solitary Cacique Callitrichidae Iguanas
Clypicterus oseryi Casqued Oropendola Saguinus nigricollis Black-mantle tamarin Hoplocercidae
Icterus chrysocephalus Moriche Oriole Enyalioides laticeps Amazon forest dragon
Icterus croconotus Orange-backed Troupial Cebidae
Molothrus oryzivorous Giant Cowbird Allouatta seniculus Red howler monkey Polychrotidae
Psarocolius angustifrons Russet-backed Oropendola Aotus sp. Night monkey Anolis fuscoauratus Slender anole
Psarocolius decumanas Crested Oropendola Cebus albifrons White-fronted capuchin Anolis nitens scypheus Yellow-tongued forest anole
Psarocolius viridis Green Oropendola Anolis ortonii Amazon bark anole
Carnivora Carnivores Anolis punctata Amazon green anole
Class Mammalia Procyonidae Raccoon Anolis trachyderma Common forest anole
Marsupialia Nasua nasua South american coati
Didelphidae Opossums Potos flavus Kinkajou Scincidae
Caluromys lanatus Western woolly opposum Mabuya nigropunctata Black-spotted skink
Chironectes minimus Water opossum Mustelidae Weasel
Didelphis marsupialis Common opossum Eira barbara Tayra Tropiduridae
Marmosa lepida Little rufous mouse opossum Lontra longicaudis Neotropical otter Tropidurus (Plica) plica Collared tree runner
Tropidurus (plica) umbra
Micoureus demerarae Long-furred woolly mouse opossum ochrocollaris Olive tree runner
Philander sp. Four-eyed opossum Felidae Cat
Herpailurus yaguarundi Jaguarundi Teiidae
Xenarthra Leopardus pardalis Ocelot Kentropyx pelviceps Forest whiptail
Megalonychidae Puma concolor Puma Tupinambis teguixin Golden tegu
Subfamily Choloepinae Two-toed sloths
Choloepus diadactylus Southern two-toed sloth Artidactyla Peccaries and Deer Snakes
Mazama americana Red brocket deer Colubridae
Dasypodidae Armadillos Tayassu tajacu Collared peccary Atractus elaps Earth snake sp3
Cabassous unicinctus Southern naked-tailed armadillo Atractus major Earth snake
Dasypus novemcinctus Nine-banded armadillo Rodentia Rodents Atractus occiptoalbus Earth snake sp2
49
Echimyidae Chironius fuscus Olive whipsnake
Chiroptera Dactylomys dactylinus Amazon bamboo rat Chironius scurruls Rusty whipsnake
Carollinae Short-tailed Fruit bats Nectomys squamipes Water rat Clelia clelia clelia Musarana
Carollia brevicauda Proechimys semispinosus Spiny rat Dendriphidion dendrophis Tawny forest racer
Carollia castanea Dipsas catesbyi Ornate snail-eating snake
Carollia perspicullatus Short-tailed fruit bat Sciuridae Squirrels Dipsas indica Big-headed snail-eating snake
Rhinophylla pumilio Little fruit bat Sciurus sp. Amazon red squirrel Drepanoides anomalus Amazon egg-eating snake
Sciurillus pusillus Neotropical pygmy squirrel Drymoluber dichrous Common glossy racer
Banded south american water
Desmodontinae Vampire bats Helicops angulatus snake
Desmodus rotundus Common vampire bat Large Cavylike Rodents Helicops leopardinus Spotted water snake
Common blunt-headed tree
Agouti paca Paca Imantodes cenchoa snake
Amazon blunt-headed tree
Emballonuridae Sac-winged/Sheath-tailed Bats Coendou bicolor Bi-color spined porcupine Imantodes lentiferus snake
Saccopteryx bilineata White-lined bat Dasyprocta fuliginosa Black agouti Leptodeira annulata annulata Common cat-eyed snake
Hydrochaeirs hydrochaeirs Capybara Leptophis cupreus Brown parrot snake
Glossophaginae Long tongued bats Myoprocta pratti Green acouchy Liophis miliaris chrysostomus White-lipped swamp snake
Glossophaga soricina Long tongued bat Liophis reginae Common swamp snake
Lonchophylla robusta Spear-nosed long-tongued bat Class Sauropsida Oxyrhopus formosus Yellow-headed calico snake
Lizards Oxyrhopus melanogenys Black-headed calico snake
Stenodermatidae Neotropical Fruit bats Gekkonidae Oxyrhopus petola digitalus Banded calico snake
Artibeus jamaicensis Large fruit-eating bat Gonatodes concinnatus Collared forest gecko Pseudoboa coronate** Amazon scarlet snake**
Artibeus lituratus Large fruit bat Gonatodes humeralis Bridled forest gecko Pseustes poecilonotus polylepis Common bird snake
Artibeus obscurus Large fruit bat Pseudogonatodes guianensis Amazon pygmy gecko Pseustes sulphureus Giant bird snake
Artibeus planirostus Large fruit bat Sphlophus compressus Red-vine snake
Chiroderma villosum Big-eyed bat Gymnophthalmidae Spilotes pullatus Tiger rat snake
Tantilla melanocephala
Sturrnia lilium Hairy-legged bat Alopoglossus striventris Black-bellied forest lizard melanocephala Black-headed snake
Sturnria oporaphilum Yellow shouldered fruit bat Arthrosaura reticulata reticulata Reticulated creek lizard Xenedon rabdocephalus Common false viper
Uroderma pilobatum Tent-making bat Cercosaurra argulus Xenedon severos Giant false viper
Vampyrodes caraccioli Great Stripe-faced bat Cercosaura ocellata Xenoxybelis argenteus Green-striped vine snake
Leposoma parietale Common forest lizard
Phyllostominae Spear-nosed Bats Neusticurus ecpleopus Common streamside lizard Viperidae
Macrophyllum macrophyllum Long-legged bat Prionodactylus argulus Elegant-eyed lizard Bothriopsis taeniata Speckeled forest pit viper
Mimon crenulatum Hairy-nosed bat Prionodactylus oshaughnessyi White-striped eyed lizard Bothrops atrox Fer-de-lance
Phyllostomus hastatus Spear-nosed bat Lachesis muta muta Amazon Bushmaster
Osteocephalus cabrerai complex Forest bromeliad Tree Frog
Osteocephalus cf. deridens
Boidae Osteocephalus leprieurii Common bromeliad Tree Frog
Boa constrictor constrictor Red-tailed boa Osteocephalus planiceps Flat-headed bromeliad Tree Frog Lepidoptera
Boa constrictor imperator Common boa constrictor Trachycephalus resinifictrix Amazonian Milk Tree Frog Lycaenidae
Corallus enydris enydris Amazon tree boa Phyllomedusa tarsius Warty Monkey Frog Celmia celmus
Epicrates cenchria gaigei Peruvian rainbow boa Phyllomedusa tomopterna Barred Monkey Frog Janthecla sista
Phyllomedusa vaillanti White-lined monkey Tree Frog Thecla aetolius
Elapidae Scinax garbei Fringe lipped Tree Frog Thecla mavors
Micurus hemprichii ortonii Orange-ringed coral snake Scinax rubra Two-striped Tree Frog Colobura annulata
Micrurus langsdorfii Langsdorffs coral snake Trachycephalus venulosus Common milk Tree Frog Colobura dirce
Micrurus lemniscatus Eastern ribbon coral snake
Micrurus spixii spixxi Central amazon coral snake Microhylidae Sheep Frogs Nymphalidae
Micurus surinamensis
surinamensis Aquatic coral snake Chiasmocleis bassleri Bassler's Sheep Frog Apaturinae
Doxocopa agathina
Crocodilians Leptodactylidae Rain Frogs Doxocopa griseldis
Alligatoridae Edalorhina perezi Eyelashed Forest Frog Doxocopa laurentia
Paleosuchus trigonatus Smooth-fronted caiman Prystimantis acuminatus Green Rain Frog Doxocopa linda
Prystimantis aff peruvianus Peruvian Rain Frog
50
Class Amphibia Prystimantis altamazonicus Amazonian Rain Frog Biblidinae
Caecilians Prystimantis conspicillatus Chirping Robber Frog Biblis hyperia
Typhlonectidae Prystimantis lanthanites Striped-throated Rain Frog Callicore cynosura
Caecilia aff. tentaculata Prystimantis malkini Malkini's Rain Frog Catonephele acontius
Prystimantis martiae Marti's rainfrog Catonephele esite
Plethodontidae Lungless Salamanders Prystimantis kichwarum Catonephele numilia
Bolitoglossa peruviana Dwarf climbing salamander Prystimantis sulcatus Broad-headed Rain Frog Diaethria clymena
Prystimantis variabilis Variable Rain Frog Dynamine aerata
Bufonidae Toads Hypnodactylus nigrovittatus Black-banded Robber Frog Dynamine arthemisia
Rhinella marina Cane Toad Strabomantis sulcatus Broad-headed Rain Frog Dynamine athemon
Rhinella complex margaritifer Crested Forest Toad Engystomops petersi Painted Forest Toadlet Dynamine gisella
Rhinella dapsilis Sharp-nosed Toad Leptodactylus andreae Cocha Chirping Frog Ectima thecla lerina
Leptodactylus knudseni Rose-sided Jungle Frog Eunica alpais
Dendrophryniscus Leaf Toads Leptodactylus mystaceus Eunica amelio
Dendrophryniscus minutus Orange bellied leaf toad Leptodactylus rhodomystax Moustached Jungle Frog Eunica clytia
Leptodactylus wagneri Wagneris Jungle Frog Eunica volumna
Centrolenidae Glass Frogs Lithodytes lineatus Painted Antnest Frog Hamadryas albicornus
Centrolene sp. undescribed Glass Frog Oreobates quixensis Common big headed Rain Frog Hamadryas arinome
Cochranella anetarsia Glass Frog Vanzolinius discodactylus Dark-blotched Whistling Frog Hamadryas chloe
Cochranella midas Glass Frog Hamadryas feronia
Cochranella resplendens Glass Frog Ranidae True Frogs Hamadryas laodamia
Rana palmipes Neotropical Green Frog Nessaea batesii
Dendrobatidae Poison Frogs Nessaea hewitsoni
Ameerega bilinguis Class Arachnida Nica flavilla
Ameerega ingeri Ruby Poison Frog Araneae Panacea prola
Ameerega insperatus Nephila clavipes Golden Silk Spider Panacea regina
Ameerega parvulus Ancylometes terrenus Giant Fishing Spider Paulogramma peristera
Ameerega zaparo Sanguine Poison Frog Phrrhogyra amphiro
Colostethus bocagei Class Insecta Pyrrhogyra crameri
Colostethus marchesianus Ucayali Rocket Frog Coleoptera Pyrrhogyra cuparina
Dendrobates duellmani Duellmans Poison Frog Euchroma gigantea Giant Ceiba Borer Pyrrhogyra cf nasica
Homoeotelus d'orbignyi Pleasing Fungus Beetle Pyrrhogyra otolais
Hylidae Tree Frogs Scarabaeidae Temenis laothoe
Cruziohyla craspedopus Amazon Leaf Frog Canthon luteicollis
cf. Sphaenorhychus carneus Pygmy hatchet-faced Tree Frog Deltochilum howdeni Charaxinae
Dendropsophus bifurcus Upper Amazon Tree Frog Dichotomius ohausi Agrias claudina
Dendropsophus marmorata Neotropical Marbled Tree Frog Dichotomius prietoi Archaeoprepona amphimachus
Dendropsophus rhodopeplus Red Striped Tree Frog Eurysternus caribaeus Archaeoprepona demophon
Dendropsophus triangulium Variable Clown Tree Frog Eurysternus confusus Archaeoprepona demophon muson
Hemiphractus aff. scutatus Casque-headed Tree Frog Eurysternus foedus Archaeoprepona licomedes
Hyla lanciformis Rocket Tree Frog Eurysternus inflexus Consul fabius
Hylomantis buckleyi Eurysternus plebejus Hypna clytemnestra
Hylomantis hulli Eurysternus caribaeus** Memphis arachne
Hypsiboas boans Gladiator Tree Frog Memphis oenomaus
Hypsiboas calcarata Convict Tree Frog Grylloptera Memphis philomena
Hypsiboas geographica Map Tree Frog Panacanthus cuspidatus Spiny Devil Katydid Prepona eugenes
Hypsiboas punctatus Common Polkadot Tree Frog Hemiptera Prepona dexamenus
Dysodius lunatus Lunate Flatbug Prepona laertes
Charaxinae Cont Adelpha lerna Prepona pheridamas
Zaretis isidora Adelpha melona Euptychia binoculata
Zaretis itys Adelpha mesentina Euptychia labe**
Adelpha messana Euptychia myncea
Cyrestinae Adelpha naxia Euptychia renata**
Marpesia berania Adelpha panaema Hermeuptychia hermes
Marpesia crethon Adelpha phrolseola Magneuptychia analis
Marpesia petreus Adelpha thoasa Magneuptychia libye
51
Adelpha viola Magneuptychia fugitive**
Danainae Adelpha ximena Magneuptychia ocnus
Pieridae Magneuptychia ocypete
Appias drusilla Magneuptychia tiessa
Dismorphia pinthous Nymphalinae Pareuptychia hesionides Pareuptychia hesionides
Eurema cf xanthochlora Anartia amathae Pareuptychia ocirrhoe
Perrhybris lorena Anartia jatrophae Taygetis cleopatra Cleopatra Satyr
Phoebis rurina Baeotus deucalion Taygetis echo Echo Satyr
Eresia eunice Taygetis mermeria
Danainae Eresia pelonia Taygetis sosis Sosis Satyr
Danaini Historis odius
Danaus plexippus Historis acheronta Papilionidae
Ithomiini Metamorpha elisa Battus belus varus
Aeria eurimidea Metamorpha sulpitia Battus polydamas
Ceratinia tutia Phyciodes plagiata Papilio androgeus
Hypoleria sarepta Siproeta stelenes Papilio thoas cyniras
Hyposcada anchiala Smyrna blomfildia Parides aeneas bolivar
Hyposcada illinissa Tigridia acesta Parides lysander
Hypothyris anastasia Parides pizarro
Hypothyris fluonia Satyrinae Parides sesostris
Ithomia amarilla Brassolini
Ithomia salapia Bia actorion Riodinidae
Mechanitis lysimnia Caligo eurilochus Amarynthis meneria
Mechanitis mazaeus Caligo idomeneus idomeneides Ancyluris endaemon
Mechanitis messenoides Caligo illioneus Ancyluris aulestes
Methona confusa psamathe Caligo teucer** Ancyluris etias
Methone cecilia Caligo placidiamus Anteros renaldus
Oleria gunilla Catoblepia berecynthia** Calospila cilissa
Oleria ilerdina Catoblepia generosa Calospila partholon
Oleria tigilla Catoblepia sorannus Calospila emylius
Tithorea harmonia Catoblepia xanthus Calydna venusta
Opsiphanes invirae Cartea vitula
Heliconinae Haeterini Emesis fatinella
Acraeini Cithaerias aurora Emesis lucinda
Actinote sp. Cithaerias menander Emesis ocypore
Heliconiini Cithaerias pireta Eurybia dardus
Dryas iulia Haetera macleannania Eurybia elvina
Eueides eunice Haetera piera Eurybia franciscana
Eueides isabella Pierella astyoche Eurybia halimede
Eueides lampeto Pierella hortona Eurybia unxia
Eueides lybia Pierella lamia Hyphilaria parthenis
Heliconius erato Pierella lena Isapis agyrtus
Heliconius hecale Pierella lucia Ithomiola floralis
Heliconius melponmene Morphini Lasaia agesilaus narses
Heliconius numata Antirrhea hela Lasaia pseudomeris
Heliconius sara Morpho achilles Leucochimona vestalis
Heliconius xanthocles Morpho deidamia Livendula amaris
Heliconius doris Morpho helenor Livendula violacea
Philaethria dido Morpho menelaus Lyropteryx appolonia
Morpho peleides Mesophthalma idotea
Limenitidinae Morpho polycarmes Mesosemia loruhama
Adelpha amazona Euptychini Mesosemia latizonata
Adelpha cocala Caeruleuptychia scopulata Napaea heteroea
Adelpha cytherea Chloreuptychia agatha Nymphidium mantus
Adelpha erotia Chloreuptychia herseis Nyphidium nr minuta
Limenitidinae continued…
52
Adelpha iphicleola
Adelpha iphiclus
Riodinidae cont Riodinidae continued…. Uranidae

Pandemos pasiphae Setabis gelasine Urania leilus Urania Moth
Perophtalma lasus Stalachtis calliope
Pirascca tyriotes Stalachtis phaedusa Noctuidae
Rhetus arcius Synargis orestessa Thysania agrippina White Witch Moth
Rhetus periander Nymphidium lysimon
Sarota chrysus Nymphidium balbinus
Sarota spicata Nymphidium caricae
Nymphidium chione
53
Appendix B: Species Data For Dung Beetles
NB – start date refers to the start date of each 48 hour trapping period
Site Start date UnID No. Species No. of individuals
DB1 13-Jul-09 Canthon luteicollis 4
DB1 13-Jul-09 Dichotomius prietoi 1
DB1 13-Jul-09 Eurysternus caribaeus 16
DB1 13-Jul-09 Eurysternus confusus 20
DB1 13-Jul-09 Eurysternus inflexus 3
DB1 13-Jul-09 Canthidium sp.2 3
DB1 13-Jul-09 Onthophagus sp.1 17
DB1 13-Jul-09 Uroxys sp.1 4
DB1 13-Aug-09 Canthon luteicollis 3
DB1 13-Aug-09 Dichotomius ohausi 1
DB1 13-Aug-09 Eurysternus caribaeus 11
DB1 13-Aug-09 Eurysternus confusus 6
DB1 13-Aug-09 Canthidium sp.2 2
DB1 13-Aug-09 Dichotomius sp.3 1
DB1 13-Aug-09 Onthophagus sp.1 2
DB2 13-Aug-09 Dichotomius prietoi 2
DB2 13-Aug-09 Eurysternus inflexus 6
DB2 13-Aug-09 Canthon sp.1 3
DB3 13-Aug-09 Eurysternus foedus 2
54
DB3 13-Aug-09 UnID sp.8 1
DB3 24-Aug-09 Uroxys sp.1 9
DB5 28-Jul-09 Dichotomius prietoi 5
55
DB5 28-Jul-09 Canthon sp.1 3
DB6 28-Jul-09 Canthon sp.1 4
DB6 24-Aug-09 Dichotomius ohausi 2
DB7 13-Jul-09 Eurysternus plebejus 2
56
DB7 20-Aug-09 Oxysternon sp.1 1
DB8 13-Jul-09 Eurysternus plebejus 1
DB8 13-Jul-09 Dichotomius sp.3 1
DB8 13-Jul-09 UnID sp.8 2
DB9 7-Jul-09 Dichotomius ohausi 1
DB9 7-Jul-09 Uroxys sp.1 1
DB9 5-Aug-09 Eurysternus plebejus 1
57
58
Appendix C: Maps Of The Yachana Reserve With Keys
Map 1
59
Map 2
60
Map 3
61
Map Key
Map 1. Former land-use within the reserve.
Key:
Red line – Reserve border
Green – Primary forest
Yellow – Pasture
Orange – Plantations
Map 2. Current land-use outside the reserve and illegal activities within it.
Key:
Outside
Yellow – Pasture
Inside
Violet – Areas affected by hunting
Blue – Areas affected by cattle grazing
Crimson – Areas affected by logging
Map 3. Former land-use within the reserve and current land-use outside combined.
Key:
Yellow – Pasture
62
Appendix D: Yachana Reserve Map
63

Amazon Phase Report 093 June-September 2009

Încărcat de

Informații document

Descriere originală:

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Amazon Phase Report 093 June-September 2009

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Global Vision International,

XXXXX Report Series No. 00X

Rainforest Conservation and Community

Phase Report 093

Chris Beirne – Field Staff

Leeron Tagger Field Staff Bonnie Mappin Volunteer

GVI Ecuador/Rainforest Conservation and Community Development

Figure 2.1 - Pie chart showing breakdown in families of individuals recorded.

Table 4.6 - Simson’s index of diversity for the 12 pitfall sites.

Table 5.1 – New butterfly species identified in the Yachana reserve

The Rainforest Conservation and Community Development expedition operated by Global

GVI additionally conducts English classes (Teaching English as a Foreign Language-

 Cataloguing species diversity in the Yachana Reserve in relation to regional

2.2.2 Mist Netting

Tyrannidae, 48, 5% Accipitridae, 33, 4%

Thraupidae, 52, 6% Cathartidae

Figure 2.1. Pie chart showing breakdown in families of individuals recorded.

2.3.2 Mist Netting

2.4.1 Road Transects

2.4.2 Mist Netting

4.2 Problem Statement

4.2.1 Current State of Amphibian and Reptile Research

4.3 Aims Of The Research

4.4 Study Site

4.5.1 Nocturnal and Diurnal Visual Encounter Surveys

4.5.2 Pitfall Trapping

Surveying primary rainforest habitat is a privileged opportunity; however there is the

4.5.3 Habitat Feature Mapping

4.6.1 Species Encountered in 093

4.6.2 Pitfalls in Expedition 093

Table 4.1: Number of individuals found in pitfalls in 093

4.6.3 Visual Encounter Surveys (093)

Table 4.2: Number of individuals found on visual encounter surveys in 093

Total secondary 131 122 9

4.6.4 Species Encountered Overall in the Project So Far:

Tropidurus umbra Anolis nitens

Anolis nitens scypheus

Kentropyx Leposoma parietale

pelviceps, 6, 11% Neusticurus ecpleopus

Tropidurus umbra ochrocollaris

Allobates zapero, Allobates zapero

17, 6% Ameerega bilinguis

Ameerega Engystomops petersi

Pristimantis bilinguis, 46, 15% Hypodactylus nigrovittatus

ockendeni Leptodactylus andreae

Hypodactylus Pristimantis altamazonicus

nigrovittatus, Pristimantis diadematus

27, 9% Pristimantis lanthanites

Pristimantis Rhinella dapsilis

4.6.6 Visual Encounter Surveys

Total secondary 245 224 21

Lepsoma Anolis fuscoauratus

Table 4.6 - Simpson’s index of diversity for the 12 pitfall sites.

The Yachana Reserve comprises approximately 1800 hectares of predominantly primary

In order to explore the nymphalid-vegetation relationship, vegetation was mapped using

Table 5.1 – New butterfly species identified in the Yachana Reserve

Genus Species Trap site GPS Date

6 Dung Beetle Research

At the Yachana Reserve there is a unique opportunity to investigate variation in habitat

Table 6.1: Habitat type of each dung beetle sampling site

Site Habitat Type

Site Trial 1 Trial 2 Average

7.1 Introduction and Rationale