Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
GVI Ecuador
Produced by
Chris Beirne – Field Manager
Oliver Burdikin – Field Staff
Simon Mitchell –Field Staff
and
Edited by
Karina Berg – Country Director
• Added three new species to the reserve list; Ornate Hawk-eagle (Spizaetus
ornatus), Hog-nosed Pitviper (Bothrops hyoprora), and the Neotropical marbled
Frog (Hyla maromaratus).
• Continued assesseing the effect of habitat change in understory bird communities.
• Continued to collect data on the effect of structural habitat change on the
amphibian and reptile communities, using pitfall trapping and visual encounter surveys.
• Continued with a project investigating the effects of disturbance from the road upon
butterfly communities.
• Continued to sample dung beetles within different habitats around the reserve.
• Continued with English lessons for local school children in Puerto Rico twice a
week.
• Continued giving English classes at Puerto Salazar whenever possible.
• Welcomed four pasantias (work experience students) from the Yachana Technical
High School to join the expedition, 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.
• Continued helping the local organisation Amanecer Campisino with their projects in
the local region.
3
Contents
List of Figures ................................................................................................................. 5
1 Introduction................................................................................................................ 6
2 Avian Research ......................................................................................................... 9
2.1 Avian Mistnetting................................................................................... 9
3 Mammal Incidentals................................................................................................. 15
4 Herpetological Research.......................................................................................... 15
4.1 The Effect of Structural Habitat Change on Herpetofaunal
Communities................................................................................................ 15
5 Butterfly Research ................................................................................................... 20
5.1 Assessment of Antropogenic Disturbance on Butterfly Communities... 20
6 Dung Beetle Research............................................................................................. 25
6.1 Assessment of the Impact of Structural Habitat Change on Dung
Beetle Assemblages .................................................................................... 25
7 Community Development Projects ........................................................................... 34
7.1 Colegio Técnico Yachana (Yachana Technical High School) .............. 34
7.2 TEFL at Puerto Rico............................................................................ 34
7.3 English Classes at Puerto Salazar ...................................................... 35
8 Future Expedition Aims............................................................................................ 35
9 References .............................................................................................................. 36
9.1 General References ............................................................................ 36
9.2 Field Use References.......................................................................... 37
9.3 Dung Beetle References ..................................................................... 38
9.4 Amphibian References ........................................................................ 39
9.5 Butterfly References............................................................................ 42
10 Appendix A - GVI Species List ................................................................................. 43
10.1 Class Aves .......................................................................................... 43
10.2 Class Mammalia.................................................................................. 46
10.3 Class Sauropsida ................................................................................ 47
10.4 Class Amphibia ................................................................................... 48
10.5 Class Arachnida .................................................................................. 49
10.6 Class Insecta ...................................................................................... 49
11 Appendix B – GVI Yachana Reserve Map ............................................................... 53
4
List of Figures
Figure 2.1.1 Map showing the location of each mistnetting site
Figure 4.1.3 Number of individuals found in pitfall traps in total in the project so far
Figure 4.1.4 Number of individuals found in total for visual encounter surveys in the
project so far
Figure 5.1.1 New standardised dot codes introduced in week 6 of Phase 101
Figure 5.1.2 Number of species and individuals trapped at each trap site
Figure 5.1.3 Average number of species and individuals encountered at each site
Figure 5.1.4 Number of species recorded at each trap in the forest and trail areas
5
1 Introduction
GVI Amazon
Rio Napo, Napo Province
Fig. 1.1
6
stone and gravel based road which dissects the primary forest to the north and the
abandoned cacao plantations and grassland areas to the south.
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.
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:
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
8
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 8th January to Friday 19th March 2010, at the Yachana
Reserve.
2 Avian Research
Several studies have optimistically concluded that this expansion of secondary forest
will offset the loss of worldwide biodiversity through destruction of primary habitat
(Wright 2005; Wright and Muller–Landau 2006). Stating that, the observed time lags
between habitat destruction and species extinctions are of sufficient length to allow
secondary forest to mature and regenerate into suitable habitat (Brooks et al; 2002).
Dunn (2004) states that; regenerating tropical secondary forests recover sufficiently in
20-40 years to recover faunal species diversity, but support lesser tree diversities than
old growth forests. Species compositions of flora and fauna communities often differ
between secondary and primary habitats (Blake and Loiselle 2000). The value of
regenerating secondary forest will be context and species dependant. There is a
growing consensus that there is currently a lack of empirical evidence to support the
theories that regenerating disturbed habitats will be sufficient to conserve most forest
species in the future (Gardner et al. 2007). Undoubtedly, further research needs to be
9
performed before the true value of secondary regenerating forest can be unequivocally
determined.
There is currently a lack of consensus between many studies examining the impacts of
habitat change on bird communities. Despite birds being the most studied and
understood taxa in the Neotropics, a recent review of literature found that, pre-2008;
only 17 studies examined the value of secondary forest for tropical birds (Barlow et al.
2006). The majority of studies conducted to date have concluded that secondary
forests can support equivalent or high levels of species richness compared to primary
or relatively undisturbed forest (Barlow et al, 2006). Despite these encouraging results,
there are a whole host of problems with the existing studies which make a strong
conclusion of the value of secondary forest for Neotropical birds impossible to
determine (Gardner et al. 2006). For example, several of the studies attribute the high
species richness to the close proximity of primary habitat, resulting in primary species
being transiently recorded in secondary habitat. Several studies also lacked a good
primary forest baseline with which to compare their results (Barlow et al. 2006). This
aims to address the problems highlighted by Gardner et al (2007), to compare
understory bird communities in the disturbed secondary patches of the Yachana
Reserve with the relatively undisturbed patches.
Method
Study Plots
Four net locations were established around the reserve; two in relatively disturbed
areas, two in relatively undisturbed areas (see fig. 2.1.1). The net locations were no
closer than 500m apart at their nearest point as Barlow and Peres (2004) concluded,
based on recaptures of marked individuals, that plots 500m apart were spatially
independent. The net locations are restricted to trails within the reserve, as the hilly
topography makes establishing nets in other locations impossible without destroying
large areas of native vegetation. Plots are random with respect to tree fall gaps,
fruiting trees or other factors which may influence capture rates.
Mistnetting
Understory mistnetting was used to examine the avifauna at each of the four sites
within the reserve. Each site was sampled for 66 to 69 hours between the 18th of
January 2010 and the 10th March 2010. Four 12x2.5m mist nets with 10-40m spacing
(to allow for difficult topography) were established at each site. All nets could be
checked within a 10-15min period. Captured birds were then released away from the
10
net locations from an established banding station. Nets were opened between 6.30am
and 11.10am for four successive days, allowing extra hours or days to account for
periods of persistent wind or heavy rain. Nets were checked every 30 minutes. All
captures were placed in a bird bag and returned to the banding station where they
were be identified to species, banded, weighed, measured and sexed whenever
possible. All birds were banded to identify recaptures, except hummingbirds, which
have extremely delicate legs.
Figure. 2.1.1 Map showing the location of each mist netting site
Represents the locations of each mist-netting site within the Yachana Reserve. The pink
dots represent the ‘less disturbed’ sites of Laguna and Frontier, whilst the green dots
represent the ‘more disturbed’ sites of Cascada and Ficus. The blue circles represent
required site separation outlined by Barlow and Perez (2004) to ensure the sites are
independent.
Vegetation Mapping
Around each mist-netting site six 100m transects were assessed. Each transect started
250m away from the mist-netting center point and ended 150m away from the center
point, and were spaced evenly to avoid psuedoreplication. The transects were stratified
and placed randomly with regard to topography and habitat. Along each transect, five
canopy coverage estimations were made by two independent observers and the
dominant type of canopy was noted (Absent, Low, Middle and High). All
Melostomatacae and Heliconidae within 5m either side of the transect line were
11
counted. All trees >30cm Diameter at Breast Height (DBH) were measured within 5m
either side of the transect line. The presence or absence of trees of the genus
Theobroma and coffee plants were also noted.
Results
Vegetation Profiling
Vegetation profiling was performed in the week immediately following each mist netting
session (see Fig. 2.1.2). The numbers of Melostomacae varied from 156 (Cascada) to
1393 (Ficus). Number of flowing Heliconidae varied from 20 (Laguna) to 124
(Cascada). Coffee showed the most marked difference between the sites from two
(Laguna) to 3230 individuals (Ficus). Cascada and Laguna were dominated by high
canopy (63.3-90%) whereas Ficus and Frontier sites were predominantly mid-canopy.
However, only Cascada and Ficus were found to have gaps in their canopies. The
canopy cover measurement is inconclusive; with all sites spread from 42-53%. The
largest tree located was on the Cascada site; however Frontier had the largest average
DBH measurement. Finally, twelve freshly cut tree trunks were found at the Ficus site,
indicating strong human disturbance.
Fig. 2.1.2
Canopy
Cover
Location Number of Plants Canopy Class (%) (%) Five largest trees DBH Notes
The strongest differences observed between the sites were the presence of >900
individuals of coffee at Cascada and Ficus with canopy gap compositions of 6.7%. In
comparision Laguna and Frontier contained <7 individual coffee plants and had a 0%
canopy gap composition. On the basis of these results Cascada and Ficus are
classified as ‘more disturbed’ and Laguna and Frontier are classified as ‘less
disturbed’.
Avifaunal Sampling
In Phase 101 (Fig. 2.1.3) 127 birds were captured in 269 hours of mist-netting between
the dates of 18th of January 2010 and the 10th March 2010. Individuals caught at each
12
site varied from eleven individuals to 35. Each site was subjected to between 66 hours
and 68.3 net hours of sampling. The total number of individuals captured in the ‘more
disturbed’ areas was 23, whereas the total number of individuals captured in the ‘less
disturbed’ areas was 57. The number of species captured at the ‘less disturbed’ sites
was also lower that captured in the ‘more disturbed’ sites (see Fig. 2.1.3). The
understory birds caught at each of the ‘more disturbed’ areas represented only five
different bird families, where as birds caught at the ‘less disturbed’ areas each
represented by eleven and nine different bird families. Capture efficiencies,
represented by number of individuals per mist net hour, where also higher in the ‘less
disturbed’ sites (0.32 and 0.52 indiv.h-1) in comparison to the ‘more disturbed’ sites
(0.18 and 0.17 indiv.h-1).
Direct comparison of summary mist-netting information from Phases 094 (Fig. 2.1.4)
and 101 (Fig. 2.1.3) shows that the total numbers of individuals caught per phase has
decreased from 127 in phase 094 to 80 in phase 101. Previously noted trends that
there is lower species diversity and fewer individuals in the ‘more disturbed’ locations
are consistent between phase 094 and phase 101.
13
Discussion
Vegetation Profiling
Using the vegetation mapping methods, in-field observation and map consultation;
Laguna and Frontier have been classified as ‘less disturbed’ whereas Cascada and
Ficus have been classified as ‘more disturbed’. The crucial differences appear to be
absence/presence of coffee plants and canopy gaps, however, more data must be
collected before these results can be confirmed.
Understory Mist-netting
Several differences between the ‘less disturbed’ and ‘more disturbed’ sites have been
observed. These include: number of species caught, number of individuals caught,
number of families represented, and percentage of individuals of a given family caught
at each site. However, the current sample size of 207 birds is completely prohibitive of
any statistically relevant analysis. The differences observed could be due to but not
limited to: genuine differences in understory bird community richness and structure in
each area, seasonal variations in bird foraging patterns, different weather conditions, or
simply a function of the low number of birds in the data set. The only way to begin to
address these potential factors is to increase the size of data set through repeated
sampling at each study site until enough data is obtained. Until that point, any
conclusions will be simply speculation.
The comparison of phase data from Phase 094 to Phase 101 is interesting. There was
a clear drop in the number of individuals caught at all sites. This could be due to
seasonal fluctuations in weather, local food availability effects or the disturbance
caused by the mist-netting method itself. It will be interesting to see if this trend
continues as this project moves into its next phase. The number of different species
caught at each site remained consistent, which would indicate that the observed drop is
in the number of individuals only – not a decrease in diversity.
Future Work
Both the understory mist-netting and vegetation mapping will be continued in their
current forms as they appear to be functioning effectively.
14
3 Mammal Incidentals
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 has proved to not be sufficiently productive.
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 occurence 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.
Sightings
During this phase various mammal species were recorded incidentally, whilst groups
were participating in other survey work or walks in 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), Paca (Agouti paca). Also recorded were various unidentified
small rodents found in the amphibian pitfall traps.
4 Herpetological Research
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.
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).
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).
Methods
In Phase 101, data was collected between 16th January to10th March 2010.
Twelve 75m transects in both the primary and secondary locations were established.
Care was taken to space transects sufficiently to avoid psuedoreplication. Transects
were marked with coloured transect tape to avoid unnecessary habitat modification.
Where possible, the transects were 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.
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
17
publications (Ernst and Rodel, 2004; Donnelly et al 2005) and GVI’s own preliminary
investigations. Each transect was searched by six observers (strip width = 6m, duration
= 1h 30m).
Pitfall Trapping
Twelve pitfall arrays were also established in both primary and secondary forest. Each
array consists of four 25L buckets with 8m long by 50cm high plastic drift fence
connecting them in linear shaped design. When open, the pitfalls were checked at once
a day.
Particular care was taken to ensure that sampling effort is equal for both primary and
secondary habitats. This ensures maximum comparability in the resultant data sets.
Any amphibians or reptiles encountered through either method were identified in the
field using available literature and released. Any individual which could not be identified
was taken back to the GVI base camp for further analysis. A small proportion of the
captured individuals, including those that could not be identified, were anaesthetised
with Lidocaine and fixed with 10% formalin. All preseserved specimens are stored at
the Museo Ecuatoriano de Ciencias Naturales (MECN).
Results
Species Encountered in 101
During this phase, 284 identified reptile and amphibian individuals were encountered,
comprising 19 species of amphibian and 16 species of reptile.
Pitfalls
Figure 4.1.3 Number of individuals found in pitfall traps in total in the project so far
Amphibians and Amphibians Reptiles
reptiles
Total 701 589 122
Figure 4.1.4: Number of individuals found in total for visual encounter surveys in the
project so far
Amphibians and Amphibians Reptiles
reptiles
Total 778 719 59
(approx 5760 mins survey
time with 5/6 searchers)
Discussion
The amphibian and reptile work continues to provide a wealth of species which are
continuing to show 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. The amphibians Ameerga bilinguis, Pristimantis kichwarum,
Pristimantis lanthanites, Bolitoglossa peruvianus (Dwarf-climbing Salamander) and the
lizard Lepsoma parietale are still found in greater numbers than other species at
various habitat types around the reserve.
19
It should be noted that Pristimantis ockendeni has recently been identified as three
different species and the species found within this reserve has been identified as
Pristimantis kichwarum. This identification has been made by observations of
morphological features and verification of photographs by specialists working on the
initial identification of these species.
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
determine the types of amphibians and reptiles found in specific habitat types.
5 Butterfly Research
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.
20
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 disturbed and undisturbed habitat
types in monitoring programs investigating butterfly community variation.
Method
Data collection continued on the established series of 200m transects on the Columbia
and Frontier Trails. The same sampling sites located every 50m continued to be
monitored. The Columbia and Frontier Trails run roughly perpendicular to the road and
receive heavy usage from GVI volunteers, Yachana tourtists 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.
As in the previous phases of the study, 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 previous phases of
study butterflies had been marked on the hindwing with non-toxic permanent marker
and replaced in the traps in order to measure escape rates.
Although marking in order to measure recapture rates has continued since the initiation
of the project, the dot codes used to refer to different traps have been inconsistent,
rendering a long period of recapture data unusable. This resulted from unexpected
21
changes in staff members running the project in phase 101. The dot code used during
the first six weeks of phase 101 was not standardised between observers and
recaptures of butterflies initially caught during this period show inconsistent dot code
markings. During the latter part of Phase 101 a standardised dot code was introduced
(Fig.5.1.1). Since nymphalidae and other detritivorous tribes can have a life span of
three to six months (Florida Museum Of Natural History, 2010; Turner 1971) recapture
data should be considered unsafe for the next phase and carefully monitored until no
further discrepancies from the new dot codes are noted.
Figure 5.1.1The new standardised dot codes introduced in week six of Phase 101.
It is worth noting that although specific dot-code data is unreliable all butterflies caught
continued to be marked before release. Therefore it will continue to be possible to
differentiate between recaptures and newly-caught individuals and hence avoid any
pseudo-replication.
Since data collection to explore escape rates and the nymphalid-vegetation relationship
had both been undertaken at the outset of the project it was not necessary to
undertake further vegetation mapping or escape experiments.
Results
Overall 187 individuals of at least 36 different species were captured over the two 14-
day periods with an additional twelve species still awaiting identification confirmation.
Only one new species was confirmed for the Yachana Reserve species list – Caligo
22
euphorbas, however, several of the specimens awaiting identification were also
suspected to be new to the reserve species list.
Some preliminary analysis all the data collected since the initiation of the project was
attempted, with the aim of elucidating some of the original trends sought in the initial
project proposal, namely the difference in the butterfly communities in areas of varying
levels of disturbance. Figure 5.1.2 displays the number of species and number of
individuals caught in each trap since the beginning of the project.
Fig. 5.1.2 Number of species and individuals trapped at each trap site.
Fig 5.1.3 Average number of species and individuals encountered at each site.
23
A greater diversity of butterflies was found in the undisturbed forest locations. However,
the number of individuals averaged marginally higher in traps on the disturbed trails.
The averages for both undisturbed forest and disturbed trails are displayed in the table
and graph below (Fig 5.1.3, Fig. 5.1.4).
25
20
15
Number of Species
10
0
l
st
st
st
st
st
st
st
st
st
ai
ai
ai
ai
ai
ai
ai
ai
ai
re
re
re
re
re
re
re
re
re
Tr
Tr
Tr
Tr
Tr
Tr
Tr
Tr
Tr
Fo
Fo
Fo
Fo
Fo
Fo
Fo
Fo
Fo
Figure 5.1.4 Number of species recorded at each trap in the forest and trail areas.
Discussion
The two two-week periods of capture were marked by significantly lower capture levels
than in previous phases (187 individuals over the 28 days in comparison with 184
individuals in only 14 days during 094b). This was thought to be mainly due to changes
in the weather linked with a change into the wet season (more periods of heavy
rainfall), since it is know that butterflies alter their levels of activity according to climatic
conditions (Clench, 1966) with rainfall also reducing population (Hamer et al., 2003). It
was also speculated that slight changes in the practice of banana bait preparation may
have affected the attractiveness of the bait used. The methodology devised by Devries
& Walla (1999) will be followed exactly from this point forward in order to rule out any
bias from quality of bait.
More species were recorded in undisturbed forest sites that disturbed trail sites
although this is not currently a strong enough trend to be statistically significant.
Several studies have found the opposite of this; that more disturbed habitats tend to
hold great diversity of butterflies (Hamer et al. 2003). However, anthropological
24
disturbance (rather than natural disturbance) has been shown to be negatively
correlated with butterfly diversity in certain forest habitats (Brown & Frietas, 2000).
Further data and more statistically robust analysis are required before the trends
tentatively identified by the analysis here can be confirmed, it will also be necessary to
check the data fit a normal or log-normal distribution. On average marginally more
individuals have been recorded from trail-base traps than undisturbed forest, although
this was such a minimal difference that it seems unlikely to be significant even once
further data are collected. .
This project will continue using the same methods as initially set out in the project
proposal (Brimble, 2009) next phase to acquire a larger sample size. Specimens and
photos of the unidentified species have been retained for future identification.
Habitat fragmentation is one of the most widespread and pervasive human activities
impacting upon the earth’s dwindling tropical rainforest habitats. Fragmentation
25
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 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).
This study aims to survey dung beetles in tropical rainforest forest fragments located in
the Ecuadorian Amazon at the Yachana Reserve, to examine the effects of habitat
fragmentation on species diversity and abundance of these beetles.
This research addresses two main questions in the study at the reserve: (1) Does
habitat, isolation, or the density of trees of a fragment affect species richness, and
abundance? (2) Does fragmentation, isolation, or tree density affect the abundance of
the dominant species?
Methods
Study Site
All research was performed directly on, or in the area immediately surrounding, the
Yachana Reserve (see Appendix B). 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. A growing body of research suggests that
roads can have a negative impact on species diversity (Cushman et al. 2006). Roads
can decrease dispersal, reduce genetic diversity and increase mortality. These affects
were considered when interpreting any data obtained.
26
Nine sites were chosen at random and marked throughout the Yachana Reserve
during Phase 092, 2009. Each site contained four baited pitfall traps, each positioned
on the corner of a 50m x 50m grid (refer to Figure 6.1.2), 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 four within the secondary matrix.
This allowed direct comparisons to be made between these two habitat types (refer to
Fig 6.1.1). Individual trap catches were pooled together for each site. Two sites were
exposed at one time (a trapping station from the primary forest and a trapping station
from the secondary matrix), in random combinations, so as to minimize the effect of
weather variability upon overall catch data. During the Phase 101 each trapping site
was sampled for 48 hours (apart from DB5 and DB9, sampled for only 24 hours), at
trapping stations spread throughout the habitat matrices. Traps were emptied every 24
hours. Each 24-hour sample from a trap was considered a single trap day. Trapping
periods lasted 48 hours in most cases. Beetles were identified by the author and
confirmed with assistance of specialists from the Museo Ecuatoriano de Ciencias
Naturales (MECN) in Quito. Beetles measuring ≥ 13 mm were considered as large.
Voucher specimens are temporarily held at GVI’s workstation within the Yachana
Reserve.
27
Figure 6.1.2 Trap layouts at each site
Each pitfall trap is constructed of a 16oz plastic container, baited with a dung ball
suspended above it. Containers were placed in a hole dug in the ground so that the top
was flush with the surrounding soil, 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 filled with an inch of water containing scent-free liquid detergent in order to
increase viscosity, to prevent beetles from escaping. Fresh dung, used as bait, was
collected from a horse on the morning of baiting the traps. 50cc 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 placed in 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.
Species occupy a particular habitat for breeding because the habitat contains certain
environmental factors that allow a species to carry out its life history (Hilden 1965,
James et al. 1984). Vegetation structure is of considerable importance to dung beetle
species habitat (MacArthur and MacArthur 1961, Hilden 1965, James 1971, Cody
1981, 1985). Some dung beetle species are specifically adapted to a vegetation
structure that meets their foraging requirements (Hilden 1965, Robinson and Holmes
28
1982, Cody 1985). To accurately assess dung beetle behavior, a thorough knowledge
of the vegetation structure of the habitats that they occupy is critical.
An alternative approach, and the one used in this study, is to compare the vegetation
structure of occupied sites from a broad geographic perspective (James et al. 1984). If
it is assumed that a species have similar foraging and nest-site selection behaviors
throughout its range, then we can expect to see similarities in the vegetation structure
of different localities, even though other variables (e.g., floristics, tree age,
management practices) may be different. Similarities and differences in the vegetation
structure from different localities may help identify structural features that are more or
less critical for occupancy, respectively. Further, this approach may give a better
understanding of the vegetation structure that may constrain the distribution of a
species (James et al. 1984, Parrish 1995).
Vegetation profiling of nine sites within the Yachana Reserve was performed in
October 2009. Vegetation mapping was performed at each pitfall trap on a transect
station. To ensure an appropriate level of independence, data from sample circles for
each site were pooled and the site was used as the sample unit in all statistical
analyses.
Seven variables were measured at each trapping location using the methods of James
and Shugart (1970) and Wiens (1973) (Table 1). A sample grid was created, placed
directly over the desired pitfall trap location. Grid lines were extended 15 feet, in each
of the four cardinal directions. Quadrants (I-IV) were established to ensure the most
accurate data recording. Tree (dbh [greater than] 15 cm) density was determined by
counting and measuring the number of live and dead trees within the sample plot.
Percent canopy and understory canopy coverage were determined by estimation.
Vegetation density was measured by counting the number of vegetation hits along the
quadrant tape markers placed on the ground. Percent woody, shrub, grass, and litter
29
covers were estimated by noting if these vegetation types came in contact with a
vertically held rod that was placed at ten equally spaced points. Litter depth was
measured within 6 cm of the base of a vertically held measurement tool. Soil samples
were taken at four different locations within the established quadrants and were then
characterized and classified using the USCS (Unified Soil Classification System).
During Phase 101 the baited pitfall traps captured a total of 2121 individuals comprised
of 18 identifiable species and eight genera within 384 hours of trapping. Sampling
occurred from January 8, 2010 to March 19, 2010. Two of the sites (DB5 and DB9)
were sampled for only 24 hours due to a limitation of resources. In order to make
these sites comparable, the average percentage decline in the number of trapped
beetles between 24 and 48 hours was calculated for each habitat type using the
available data. This average percentage decline was then applied to the number of
trapped individuals within 24 hours to extrapolate how many may have been caught
had the traps been open for 48 hours.
The highest catch yielded 706 individuals comprised of ten different identifiable species
within a 48 hour trapping period, located within the primary forest (DB4). The lowest
catch yielded four individuals, comprised of two different identifiable species after a 48
hour trapping period (DB3) within the primary undisturbed forest (Figure 6.1.3).
30
Secondary
Primary Undisturbed Individuals Disturbed Individuals
DB1- Ficus 18 DB6- Ridge 179
DB2- Upper B-loop 363 DB7- Buena Vista 234
DB3- Inca 4 DB8 -Buena Vista 124
DB4- Upper Frontier 706 DB9 -Cacao Grove 349 (534)*
DB5- Ficus (road) 144 (167*)
Total 1235 Total 886
*
Trap open for 24 hours, extrapolated total for 48 hours given in brackets
Figure 6.1.3: Habitat compared to individuals captured
The primary, undisturbed habitat shows a greater variance in the number of individuals
caught at each site from the lowest number of individuals caught (4) to the highest
(706).
In order to draw conclusions from the data it is necessary to identify beetles to species
level. This was not possible in all cases due to the complexity of the field of dung
beetle taxonomy. However, Figure 6.1.4 below presents the data regarding only those
individuals identified to species.
The most commonly found species across both habitat types was Eurysternus
caribaeus. Overall, more identifiable beetles were found in the primary habitats, yet the
number of individuals trapped in secondary habitats was greater than that of primary
habitats. This may suggest greater species diversity within secondary habitats.
However, seven of the identifiable species found within primary habitats were not found
in secondary habitats. These included Onthophagus pubresas, Deltochilum
granulatum and Eurysternus hypocrita.
31
Figure 6.1.4 Individuals identified to species
Identified to Species
Onthophagus acuminates 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1
Onthophagus haematopus 0 11 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 18 7
Onthophagus nyctopus 1 31 0 0 5 21 0 0 54 58 75
Onthophagus oere 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 6 0
Onthophagus onareo 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0
Onthophagus pubresas 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0
32
Number of Species
Site Identified
Primary- Undisturbed
Ficus 6
Upper Bloop 11
Inca 2
Upper Frontier 10
Ficus (road) 8
Mean number of Species 7.4
Secondary –Disturbed
Ridge 9
Buena Vista 7
Buena Vista 5
Cacao Grove 6
Mean number of Species 6.75
Figure 6.1.5 Comparison of habitat to species richness
When averaging the total number of species captured in each habitat, the primary - undisturbed
habitat held 7.4 identifiable species while the secondary - more disturbed habitat averaged at
6.75 identifiable species per location. There appears to be little difference between species
richness when comparing the two habitats. However, there are differences in species richness
in trapping stations within the same habitat type (refer to Figure 6.1.5).
Habitat crossover in the associated beetle fauna may suggest that most dung beetles in the
community not completely habitat specialists and possibly host specialists. Local variation in
33
abiotic factors such as soil texture, moisture, and forest structure do influence the occurrence
and relative abundance of scarabaeines (Howden & Nealis 1975, 1978; Halffter & Edmonds
1982); however thus far data suggests the former. It is understood that conclusions are
qualitative due to missing data and the problem of identifying beetles to species level. Owing to
problems identifying dung beetles down to the species level, this project will now be post-poned
until further field guides become available.
35
An expansion of teaching will branch out with weekend lessons at the local community
called of Puerto Salazar. These lessons will be the basis for a future opportunity of more
structured teaching times within this community.
9 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.
36
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.
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).
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.
DeVries, P.J., 1997. The butterflies of Costa Rica and their natural history. Volume II:
Riodinidae. Princeton University Press, Princeton.
37
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.
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.
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.
38
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.
Skole, D. L. & Tucker, C. (1994). Tropical deforestation and habitat loss fragmentation in the
Amazon: satellite data from 1978-1988. Science 260: 1905–1910.
Spector, S. & Forsyth, A. B. (1998). Indicator taxa for biodiversity assessment in the vanishing
tropics. Conservation Biology Series 1: 181-209.
Beebee, T.J.C., Griffiths, R.A., (2005). The amphibian decline crisis: A watershed for
conservation biology? Biological Conservation 125, 271–285.
39
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
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.
40
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
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.
Wright SJ (2005) Tropical forests in a changing environment Trends Ecol Evol 20:553–560.
41
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.
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.
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.
42
10 Appendix A - GVI Species List Falconidae Falcons and Caracaras
January 2010 Daptrius ater Black Caracara
Tinamiformes
Galliformes
Tinamidae Tinamous
Cracidae Curassows, Guans, and Chachalacas
Crypturellus bartletti Bartlett's Tinamou
Nothocrax urumutum Nocturnal Curassow
Crypturellus cinereus Cinereous Tinamou
Ortalis guttata Speckled Chachalaca
Crypturellus soui Little Tinamou
Penelope jacquacu Spix's Guan
Crypturellus undulatus Undulated Tinamou
Ciconiformes
Charadriiformes
Ardeidae Herons, Bitterns and Egrets
Scolopacidae Sandpipers, Snipes and Phalaropes
Ardea cocoi Cocoi Heron
Actitis macularia Spotted Sandpiper
Bubulcus ibis Cattle Egret
Tringa solitaria Solitary Sandpiper
Butorides striatus Striated Heron
Gruiformes
Cathartidae American Vultures
Rallidae Rails, Gallinules, and Coots
Cathartes aura Turkey Vulture
Anurolimnatus castaneiceps Chestnut-headed Crake
Cathartes melambrotus Greater Yellow-headed Vulture
Aramides cajanea Gray-necked Wood-Rail
Coragyps atractus Black Vulture
43
Aratinga weddellii Dusky-headed Parakeet Chelidoptera tenebrosa Swallow-winged Puffbird
Cuculiformes
Ramphastidae Toucans
44
Phaethornis bourcieri Straight-billed Hermit Cyanocorax violaceus Violaceous Jay
Trogon violaceus Amazonian Violaceous Trogon Stelgidopteryx ruficollis Southern rough-winged swallow
Chloroceryle inda Green and Rufous Kingfisher Microcerculus marginatus Southern Nightingale-Wren
45
Ramphocelus nigrogularis Masked Crimson Tanager Philander sp. Four-eyed opossum
Chiroptera
Marsupialia
Phyllostominae Spear-nosed Bats
Didelphidae Opossums
Macrophyllum macrophyllum Long-legged bat
Caluromys lanatus Western woolly opposum
Mimon crenulatum Hairy-nosed bat
Chironectes minimus Water opossum
Phyllostomus hastatus Spear-nosed bat
Didelphis marsupialis Common opossum
46
10.3 Class
Primates Monkeys
Callitrichidae Sauropsida
Saguinus nigricollis Black-mantle tamarin
Lizards
Gekkonidae
Cebidae
Gonatodes concinnatus Collared forest gecko
Allouatta seniculus Red howler monkey
Gonatodes humeralis Bridled forest gecko
Aotus sp. Night monkey
Pseudogonatodes guianensis Amazon pygmy gecko
Cebus albifrons White-fronted capuchin
Gymnophthalmidae
Carnivora Carnivores
Alopoglossus striventris Black-bellied forest lizard
Procyonidae Raccoon
Arthrosaura reticulata reticulata Reticulated creek lizard
Nasua nasua South american coati
Cercosaurra argulus
Potos flavus Kinkajou
Cercosaura ocellata
Polychrotidae
Artidactyla Peccaries and Deer Anolis fuscoauratus Slender anole
Mazama Americana Red brocket deer Anolis nitens scypheus Yellow-tongued forest anole
Tayassu tajacu Collared peccary Anolis ortonii Amazon bark anole
Echimyidae
Teiidae
47
Atractus occiptoalbus Earth snake sp2 Micrurus spixii spixxi Central amazon coral snake
Chironius fuscus Olive whipsnake Micurus surinamensis surinamensis Aquatic coral snake
Ameerega parvulus
Boidae
Ameerega zaparo Sanguine Poison Frog
Boa constrictor constrictor Red-tailed boa
Colostethus bocagei
Boa constrictor imperator Common boa constrictor
Colostethus marchesianus Ucayali Rocket Frog
Corallus enydris enydris Amazon tree boa
Dendrobates duellmani Duellmans Poison Frog
Epicrates cenchria gaigei Peruvian rainbow boa
48
**Dendropsophus marmorata **Neotropical Marbled Tree Frog Leptodactylus knudseni Rose-sided Jungle Frog
Dendropsophus triangulium Variable Clown Tree Frog Leptodactylus rhodomystax Moustached Jungle Frog
Hemiphractus aff. scutatus Casque-headed Tree Frog Leptodactylus wagneri Wagneris Jungle Frog
Hyla lanciformis Rocket Tree Frog Lithodytes lineatus Painted Antnest Frog
Hylomantis hulli
Hypsiboas calcarata Convict Tree Frog Rana palmipes Neotropical Green Frog
Scarabaeidae
Microhylidae Sheep Frogs
Canthon luteicollis
Chiasmocleis bassleri Bassler's Sheep Frog
Deltochilum howdeni
Dichotomius ohausi
Leptodactylidae Rain Frogs
Dichotomius prietoi
Edalorhina perezi Eyelashed Forest Frog
Eurysternus caribaeus
Prystimantis acuminatus Green Rain Frog
Eurysternus confusus
Prystimantis aff peruvianus Peruvian Rain Frog
Eurysternus foedus
Prystimantis altamazonicus Amazonian Rain Frog
Eurysternus inflexus
Prystimantis conspicillatus Chirping Robber Frog
Eurysternus plebejus
Prystimantis lanthanites Striped-throated Rain Frog
49
Thecla aetolius Charaxinae
Memphis offa
Diaethria clymena
Hamadryas feronia
Mechanitis lysimnia
50
Mechanitis mazaeus Anartia jatrophae
Phyciodes plagiata
Heliconiini
Catoblepia xanthus
Adelpha amazona
Adelpha thoasa
51
Morpho helenor Ancyluris etias
Calospila emylius
Nymphidium lysimon
Parides sesostris
Riodinidae
Amarynthis meneria
Ancyluris endaemon
Ancyluris aulestes
52
11 Appendix B – GVI Yachana Reserve Map
53