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

iii

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.

iv

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

v

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

6

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.

Fig. 1.1

GVI Amazon

Rio Napo, Napo Province

7

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.

8

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.

9

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

10

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

2.3.1 Road Transects

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.

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

Accipitridae, 33, 4%Bucconidae, 39, 4%

Capitonidae, 13, 1%Cathartidae, 7, 1%Columbidae, 3, 0%Contingidae, 4, 0%

Corvidae, 42, 5%

Cracidae, 2, 0%Cuculidae, 2, 0%Dendrocolaptidae, 1, 0%Emberizidae, 2, 0%

Hirundinidae, 96, 10%

Icteridae, 244, 26%

Nyctibiidae, 4, 0%Parulidae, 1, 0%Picidae, 46, 5%

Pipridae, 3, 0%

Psittacidae, 159, 17%

Rallidae, 1, 0%

Ramphistidae, 76, 8%

Thamnophilidae, 9, 1%

Thraupidae, 52, 6%

Tinamidae, 10, 1%Trochilidae, 22, 2%

Troglodytidae, 3, 0%Trogonidae, 2, 0%Turdidae, 2, 0%Tyrannidae, 48, 5%

Falconidae, 5, 1%

Accipitridae

Bucconidae

Capitonidae

Cathartidae

Columbidae

Contingidae

Corvidae

Cracidae

Cuculidae

Dendrocolaptidae

Emberizidae

Falconidae

Hirundinidae

Icteridae

Nyctibiidae

Parulidae

Picidae

Pipridae

Psittacidae

Rallidae

Ramphistidae

Thamnophilidae

Thraupidae

Tinamidae

Trochilidae

Troglodytidae

Trogonidae

Turdidae

Tyrannidae

11

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

2.4.1 Road Transects

This project has now reached a halfway point and sampling effort is equal along all three

transects.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0-100

200-300

400-500

600-70

0

800-90

0

1000-1

100

1200-1

300

1400-1

500

1600-1

700

1800-1

900

2000-2

100

2200-2

300

2400-2

500

2600-2

700

2800-2

900

3000-3

100

3200-3

300

3400-3

500

No. of indvs.

No. of sp.

12

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.

13

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).

14

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

15

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.

16

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

17

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

18

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

reptiles

Amphibians 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

Amphibians and

reptiles

Amphibians Reptiles

Total primary (approx 810 mins survey

time with 5/6 searchers)

116 106 10

Total secondary (approx 810 mins survey

time with 5/6 searchers)

131 122 9

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.

19

4.6.5 Pitfalls

Table 4.3: Number of individuals found in pitfall traps in total in the project so far

Amphibians and

reptiles

Amphibians Reptiles

Total primary 240 208 32

Total secondary 117 95 22

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.

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

Anolis nitens scypheus, 3, 5%

Kentropyx pelviceps, 6, 11%

Leposoma parietale, 21, 39%

Pseudogonatodes guianensis, 8, 15%

Tropidurus umbra ochrocollaris, 3, 5%

Anolis fuscoauratus

Anolis nitens scypheus

Anolis trachyderma

Arthrosaura reticulata

Cercosaura argulus

Gonatodes concinnatus

Gonatodes humeralis

Kentropyx pelviceps

Leposoma parietale

Neusticurus ecpleopus

Pseudogonatodes guianensis

Taeniophallus brevirostris

Tropidurus plica

Tropidurus umbra ochrocollaris

20

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).

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

Amphibians and

reptiles

Amphibians Reptiles

Total primary (approx 1620 mins survey

time with 5/6 searchers)

207 194 13

Total secondary (approx 1620 mins survey

time with 5/6 searchers)

245 224 21

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

Allobates zapero, 17, 6%

Ameerega bilinguis, 46, 15%

Hypodactylus nigrovittatus,

27, 9%

Leptodactylus andreae, 12, 4%

Leptodactylus rhodomystax, 13,

4%

Pristimantis altamazonicus, 11,

4%

Pristimantis lanthanites, 44,

15%

Pristimantis ockendeni

complex, 86, 28%

Allobates zapero

Ameerega bilinguis

Caecilia tentaculata

Colostethus marchesianus

Edalorhina perezi

Engystomops petersi

Hypodactylus nigrovittatus

Leptodactylus andreae

Leptodactylus pentadactylus

Leptodactylus rhodomystax

Lithodytes lineatus

Oreobates quixensis

Pristimantis altamazonicus

Pristimantis diadematus

Pristimantis lanthanites

Pristimantis martiae

Pristimantis ockendeni complex

Pristimantis peruvianus

Pristimantis variabilis

Rhinella dapsilis

Rhinella margaritifera complex

Rhinella marina

21

been discovered using visual encounter surveys. The lizard Lepsoma parietale is also

commonly found (n=46).

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.

Anolis fuscoauratus, 7,

20%Anolis nitens scypheus, 2,

6%

Anolis trachyderma, 13,

38%

Gonatodes humeralis, 2, 6%

Lepsoma parietale, 5,

15%

Anolis fuscoauratus

Anolis nitens scypheus

Anolis trachyderma

Attractus major

Enyalioides laticeps

Gonatodes concinnatus

Gonatodes humeralis

Imantodes cenchoa

Imantodes lentiferus

Lepsoma parietale

22

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

Ameerega bilinguis, 87, 21%

Bolitoglossa peruviana, 53,

13%

Pristimantis lanthanites, 20, 5%

Pristimantis ockendeni complex,

173, 41%

Pristimantis variabilis, 20, 5%

Allobates zaperoAmeerega bilinguisBolitoglossa peruvianaDendriphidion dendrophisDendrobates ventricuminatusEdalorhina pereziEngystomops petersiHypodactylus nigrovittatusHypsiboas boansLeptodactylus andreaeLeptodactylus mystaceusLithodytes lineatusOreobates quixensisOsteocephalus deridensPhyllomedusa tomopternaPhyllomedusa vaillantiiPristimantis acuminatusPristimantis altamazonicusPristimantis conspicillatusPristimantis diadematusPristimantis lanthanitesPristimantis martiaePristimantis ockendeni complexPristimantis peruvianusPristimantis variabilisRhinella dapsilisRhinella margaritifera complex

23

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

24

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

25

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.

26

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

Euptychia labe Trap 2a S 00°83.044' W077°24.504'

9/08/09

Euptychia renata Trap 2b S 00°83.044' W077°24.504'

9/08/09

Catoblepia berecynthia Trap 9a S 00°82.918' W077°24.382'

10/08/09

Taygetis sosis Trap 9a S 00°82.918' W077°24.382'

12/08/09

Taygetis cleopatra Trap 18b S 00°82.891' W077°24.672'

14/08/09

Caligo illioneus Trap 6a S 00°83.001' W077°24.426'

16/08/09

Ectima thecla lerina Trap 11b S 00°83.080' W077°24.382'

21/08/09

Taygetis echo Trap 17b S 00°82.950' W077°24.664'

20/08/09

Cissia hermes Trap 11b S 00°83.080' W077°24.382'

21/08/09

27

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

28

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

29

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 DB2 Primary rainforest DB3 Primary rainforest DB4 Primary rainforest DB5 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.

30

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.

31

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

32

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.

33

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.

34

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).

35

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

36

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.

37

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

38

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

39

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.

40

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.

41

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.

42

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.

43

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

44

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.

45

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.

46

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.

47

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

Accipitridae Kites, Eagles, Hawks, and 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

Cracidae Curassows, Guans, and 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

48

Odontophorus gujanensis Marbled Wood-Quail Myiodynastes maculatus Streaked Flycatcher Apodiformes

Myiodynastes luteiventris Sulphur-bellied Flycatcher

Charadriiformes

Apodidae Swifts Mionectes oleagineus Ochre-bellied Flycatcher

Scolopacidae Sandpipers, Snipes and 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

Philydor pyrrhodes Cinammon-rumped Foliage-gleaner Tangara mexicana Turquoise Tanager

Sclerurus caudacutus Black-tailed Leaftosser Tangara nigrocincta** Masked Tanager** Hirundinidae Swallows and Martins Tangara schrankii Green-and-gold Tanager

49

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

Campylorhynchus turdinus Thrush-like Wren Xiphorhynchus ocellatus Ocellated Woodcreeper Cardinalidae Saltators, Grosbeaks and

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

Micoureus demerarae Long-furred woolly mouse opossum Tropidurus (plica) umbra 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

50

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

Desmodontinae Vampire bats Helicops angulatus Banded south american water snake

Desmodus rotundus Common vampire bat Large Cavylike Rodents Helicops leopardinus Spotted water snake

Agouti paca Paca Imantodes cenchoa Common blunt-headed tree snake

Emballonuridae Sac-winged/Sheath-tailed Bats Coendou bicolor Bi-color spined porcupine Imantodes lentiferus Amazon blunt-headed tree 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

Sturrnia lilium Hairy-legged bat Alopoglossus striventris Black-bellied forest lizard Tantilla melanocephala 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

51

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

52

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…

53

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

54

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 Canthidium sp.3 16 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 Canthidium sp.3 1 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 caribaeus 15 DB2 13-Aug-09 Eurysternus confusus 20 DB2 13-Aug-09 Eurysternus inflexus 6 DB2 13-Aug-09 Canthidium sp.2 5 DB2 13-Aug-09 Canthidium sp.3 10 DB2 13-Aug-09 Canthon sp.1 3 DB2 13-Aug-09 Dichotomius sp.4 2 DB2 13-Aug-09 Onthophagus sp.1 6 DB2 24-Aug-09 Canthon luteicollis 17 DB2 24-Aug-09 Dichotomius prietoi 5 DB2 24-Aug-09 Eurysternus caribaeus 8 DB2 24-Aug-09 Eurysternus confusus 12 DB2 24-Aug-09 Eurysternus inflexus 9 DB2 24-Aug-09 Canthidium sp.2 4 DB2 24-Aug-09 Canthidium sp.3 16 DB3 13-Aug-09 Canthon luteicollis 1 DB3 13-Aug-09 Eurysternus caribaeus 11 DB3 13-Aug-09 Eurysternus confusus 13 DB3 13-Aug-09 Eurysternus foedus 2

55

DB3 13-Aug-09 Canthidium sp.2 6 DB3 13-Aug-09 Canthidium sp.3 8 DB3 13-Aug-09 Dichotomius sp.4 1 DB3 13-Aug-09 Onthophagus sp.1 6 DB3 13-Aug-09 UnID sp.8 1 DB3 24-Aug-09 Canthon luteicollis 9 DB3 24-Aug-09 Dichotomius prietoi 4 DB3 24-Aug-09 Eurysternus caribaeus 14 DB3 24-Aug-09 Eurysternus confusus 8 DB3 24-Aug-09 Eurysternus foedus 1 DB3 24-Aug-09 Eurysternus inflexus 6 DB3 24-Aug-09 Canthidium sp.2 1 DB3 24-Aug-09 Canthidium sp.3 13 DB3 24-Aug-09 Canthidium sp.4 1 DB3 24-Aug-09 Onthophagus sp.1 19 DB3 24-Aug-09 Onthophagus sp.2 1 DB3 24-Aug-09 UnID sp.6 1 DB3 24-Aug-09 Uroxys sp.1 9 DB4 5-Aug-09 Eurysternus caribaeus 30 DB4 5-Aug-09 Eurysternus confusus 4 DB4 5-Aug-09 Eurysternus inflexus 11 DB4 5-Aug-09 Canthidium sp.2 14 DB4 5-Aug-09 Canthidium sp.3 61 DB4 5-Aug-09 Onthophagus sp.1 27 DB4 17-Aug-09 Dichotomius prietoi 1 DB4 17-Aug-09 Eurysternus caribaeus 9 DB4 17-Aug-09 Eurysternus confusus 1 DB4 17-Aug-09 Eurysternus inflexus 7 DB4 17-Aug-09 Canthidium sp.2 6 DB4 17-Aug-09 Canthidium sp.3 44 DB4 17-Aug-09 Canthidium sp.4 2 DB4 17-Aug-09 Dichotomius sp.3 2 DB4 17-Aug-09 Onthophagus sp.1 6 DB4 17-Aug-09 Uroxys sp.1 1 DB5 28-Jul-09 Canthon luteicollis 6 DB5 28-Jul-09 Dichotomius prietoi 5 DB5 28-Jul-09 Eurysternus caribaeus 20 DB5 28-Jul-09 Eurysternus confusus 15 DB5 28-Jul-09 Eurysternus inflexus 7 DB5 28-Jul-09 Canthidium sp.2 2 DB5 28-Jul-09 Canthidium sp.3 159

56

DB5 28-Jul-09 Canthon sp.1 3 DB5 28-Jul-09 Onthophagus sp.1 5 DB5 17-Aug-09 Dichotomius prietoi 1 DB5 17-Aug-09 Eurysternus caribaeus 20 DB5 17-Aug-09 Eurysternus confusus 2 DB5 17-Aug-09 Eurysternus inflexus 4 DB5 17-Aug-09 Canthidium sp.2 4 DB5 17-Aug-09 Canthidium sp.3 13 DB5 17-Aug-09 Onthophagus sp.1 8 DB5 17-Aug-09 Uroxys sp.1 2 DB6 28-Jul-09 Canthon luteicollis 3 DB6 28-Jul-09 Eurysternus caribaeus 17 DB6 28-Jul-09 Eurysternus inflexus 2 DB6 28-Jul-09 Canthidium sp.2 40 DB6 28-Jul-09 Canthidium sp.3 57 DB6 28-Jul-09 Canthidium sp.4 1 DB6 28-Jul-09 Canthon sp.1 4 DB6 28-Jul-09 Onthophagus sp.1 8 DB6 24-Aug-09 Canthon luteicollis 8 DB6 24-Aug-09 Dichotomius ohausi 2 DB6 24-Aug-09 Eurysternus caribaeus 13 DB6 24-Aug-09 Eurysternus confusus 4 DB6 24-Aug-09 Eurysternus inflexus 7 DB6 24-Aug-09 Canthidium sp.2 26 DB6 24-Aug-09 Canthidium sp.3 41 DB6 24-Aug-09 Canthidium sp.5 1 DB6 24-Aug-09 Canthon sp.1 4 DB6 24-Aug-09 Dichotomius sp.4 2 DB6 24-Aug-09 Dichotomius sp.5 1 DB6 24-Aug-09 Onthophagus sp.1 5 DB6 24-Aug-09 UnID sp.3 1 DB6 24-Aug-09 UnID sp.4 1 DB6 24-Aug-09 UnID sp.5 1 DB6 24-Aug-09 Uroxys sp.1 1 DB7 13-Jul-09 Eurysternus caribaeus 1 DB7 13-Jul-09 Eurysternus confusus 1 DB7 13-Jul-09 Eurysternus plebejus 2 DB7 13-Jul-09 Canthidium sp.2 50 DB7 13-Jul-09 Canthidium sp.3 12 DB7 13-Jul-09 Onthophagus sp.1 4 DB7 20-Aug-09 Canthon luteicollis 2

57

DB7 20-Aug-09 Eurysternus caribaeus 1 DB7 20-Aug-09 Canthidium sp.2 12 DB7 20-Aug-09 Dichotomius sp.4 1 DB7 20-Aug-09 Onthophagus sp.1 2 DB7 20-Aug-09 Oxysternon sp.1 1 DB7 20-Aug-09 UnID sp.3 1 DB8 13-Jul-09 Canthon luteicollis 1 DB8 13-Jul-09 Eurysternus caribaeus 3 DB8 13-Jul-09 Eurysternus confusus 1 DB8 13-Jul-09 Eurysternus confusus 1 DB8 13-Jul-09 Eurysternus plebejus 1 DB8 13-Jul-09 Canthidium sp.2 55 DB8 13-Jul-09 Canthidium sp.3 16 DB8 13-Jul-09 Dichotomius sp.3 1 DB8 13-Jul-09 Onthophagus sp.1 5 DB8 13-Jul-09 UnID sp.8 2 DB8 20-Aug-09 Canthon luteicollis 5 DB8 20-Aug-09 Eurysternus caribaeus 3 DB8 20-Aug-09 Canthidium sp.2 4 DB8 20-Aug-09 Canthidium sp.3 1 DB9 7-Jul-09 Dichotomius ohausi 1 DB9 7-Jul-09 Eurysternus caribaeus 2 DB9 7-Jul-09 Canthidium sp.1 17 DB9 7-Jul-09 Canthidium sp.2 20 DB9 7-Jul-09 Canthidium sp.3 8 DB9 7-Jul-09 Onthophagus sp.1 2 DB9 7-Jul-09 Uroxys sp.1 1 DB9 5-Aug-09 Dichotomius prietoi 1 DB9 5-Aug-09 Eurysternus caribaeus 31 DB9 5-Aug-09 Eurysternus confusus 1 DB9 5-Aug-09 Eurysternus foedus 4 DB9 5-Aug-09 Eurysternus inflexus 5 DB9 5-Aug-09 Eurysternus plebejus 1 DB9 5-Aug-09 Canthidium sp.2 47 DB9 5-Aug-09 Canthidium sp.3 43 DB9 5-Aug-09 Canthon sp.1 2 DB9 5-Aug-09 Dichotomius sp.3 2 DB9 5-Aug-09 Onthophagus sp.1 3 DB10 28-Jul-09 Eurysternus caribaeus 13 DB10 28-Jul-09 Eurysternus confusus 1 DB10 28-Jul-09 Eurysternus inflexus 1

58

DB10 28-Jul-09 Canthidium sp.1 1 DB10 28-Jul-09 Canthidium sp.2 2 DB10 28-Jul-09 Canthidium sp.3 6 DB10 28-Jul-09 Onthophagus sp.1 1 DB10 24-Aug-09 Canthon luteicollis 1 DB10 24-Aug-09 Eurysternus caribaeus 3 DB10 24-Aug-09 Eurysternus confusus 1 DB10 24-Aug-09 Canthidium sp.2 1 DB10 24-Aug-09 Canthidium sp.3 13 DB10 24-Aug-09 Canthidium sp.4 1 DB10 24-Aug-09 Canthon sp.1 1 DB10 24-Aug-09 Onthophagus sp.1 2

59

Appendix C: Maps Of The Yachana Reserve With Keys

Map 1

60

Map 2

61

Map 3

62

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:

Red line – Reserve border

Outside

Green – Primary forest

Yellow – Pasture

Orange – Plantations

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:

Red line – Reserve border

Green – Primary forest

Yellow – Pasture

Orange – Plantations

63

Appendix D: Yachana Reserve Map