Amazon Phase Report 094 October-December 2009

Global Vision International

2009 Report Series No. 004

GVI Ecuador

Rainforest Conservation and Community

Development

Phase Report 094 October 2nd – December 11th 2009

GVI Ecuador/Rainforest Conservation and Community Development Expedition Report 094

` Submitted in whole to

Global Vision International Yachana Foundation

Museo Ecuatoriano de Ciencias Naturales (MECN)

Produced by Andrew Whitworth – Field Manager

Chris Beirne – Field Staff Samantha Brimble – Field Staff

John Guittar –Field Staff Leeron Tagger - Field Staff

and

Amy Dutton Scholar Giles Knowles Volunteer

Guy Holmes Scholar Noelle McAuley Volunteer

Mike Thackwray Scholar Hannah Milburn Volunteer

Tamara Ancaer Intern Jennifer Nockolds Volunteer

Ben Bagshaw Intern Cecillia Olsson Volunteer

Kristin Bianchini Volunteer Jill Robinson Volunteer

Amanda Carleson Volunteer Jasmine Rowe Volunteer

Ruth Coxon Volunteer Christopher Shuttle Volunteer

Kimberly Frampton Volunteer Emma Steer Volunteer

Paul Henderson Volunteer Henry Grefa High school student

Craig Herbert Volunteer Alvaro Torres High school student

Zoe Hrydziuszko Volunteer Mauricio Andi High school graduate

Alexis Kleiman Volunteer Yessica Gualingua High school graduate

Edited by Karina Berg – Country Director

GVI Ecuador/Rainforest Conservation and Community Development

Address: Casilla Postal 17-07-8832 Quito, Ecuador

Email: [email protected] Web page: http://www.gvi.co.uk and http://www.gviusa.com

3

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 fourth phase of 2009 from Friday 2nd October to Friday 11th December, GVI has:

• Added 19 new species to the reserve species list, including three birds, two reptiles, nine

dung beetles and five butterflies.

• Started a new bird project assesseing the effect of habitat change in understory bird

communities.

• Continued to collect a wealth of data for the amphibian and reptile surveying program, using

pitfall trapping and visual encounter surveys.

• Continued with a project investigating the effects of disturbance from the road upon butterfly

communities.

• Continued to sample dung beetles within different habitats around the reserve.

• Continued with English lessons for local school children in Puerto Rico twice a week.

• Welcomed two pasantes (work experience students) and two graduates from the Yachana

Technical High School to join the expedition, in order to exchange language skills, knowledge

and experience.

• Visited Yasuní National Park and Sumak Allpa, an island reserve and school run by a local

conservationist.

• Completed a project investigating the use of non-specialist volunteers to assess the calling

patterns of the Screaming Piha (Lipaugus vociferans).

4

Contents

List of Figures ................................................................................................................................... 5

List of Tables .................................................................................................................................... 5

1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 6

2 Avian Research .......................................................................................................................... 9

2.1 Bird Road Transects ........................................................................................... 9

2.1.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................... 9

2.1.2 Methods ......................................................................................................................... 9

2.1.3 Results ......................................................................................................................... 10

2.1.4 Discussion ................................................................................................................... 13

2.2 Mist Netting ........................................................................................................... 13

2.2.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................. 13

2.2.2 Methods ....................................................................................................................... 14

2.2.3 Results ......................................................................................................................... 15

Fig. 2.2.3 Percentage composition of Manakins, Antbirds and Hummingbirds at each site .......... 18

2.2.4 Discussion ................................................................................................................... 18

2.3 Screaming Pihas ................................................................................................... 19

2.3.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................. 19

2.3.2 Method ......................................................................................................................... 20

2.3.3 Results ......................................................................................................................... 20

2.3.4 Discussion ................................................................................................................... 26

3 Mammal Incidentals .................................................................................................................. 26

3.1 Introduction........................................................................................................ 26

3.2 Methods............................................................................................................. 26

3.3 Sightings............................................................................................................ 27

4 Herpetological Research .......................................................................................................... 27

4.1 Introduction........................................................................................................ 27

4.2 Problem Statement ........................................................................................... 28

4.2.1 Current State of Amphibian and Reptile Research ..................................................... 28

4.3 Methods............................................................................................................. 29

Nocturnal and Diurnal Visual Encounter Surveys ................................................................ 29

Habitat Feature Mapping ...................................................................................................... 30

4.4 Results .............................................................................................................. 30

Pitfalls in Expedition 094....................................................................................................... 31

Species Encountered Overall in the Project So Far: .................................................. 31

4.5 Discussion ......................................................................................................... 32

5 Butterfly Research .................................................................................................................... 32

5.1 Introduction........................................................................................................ 32

5.2 Methods............................................................................................................. 33

5.3 Results .............................................................................................................. 34

5.4 Discussion ......................................................................................................... 36

6 Dung Beetle Research ............................................................................................................. 36

6.1 Introduction........................................................................................................ 36

6.2 Methods............................................................................................................. 38

6.3 Results and Discussion ..................................................................................... 41

7 Community Development Projects ........................................................................................... 44

7.1 Colegio Técnico Yachana (Yachana Technical High School) .......................... 44

7.2 TEFL at Puerto Rico .......................................................................................... 44

8 Future Expedition Aims ............................................................................................................ 44

9 References ............................................................................................................................... 45

9.1 General References .......................................................................................... 45

9.2 Field Use References ........................................................................................ 46

9.3 Dung Beetle References ................................................................................... 47

9.4 Amphibian References ...................................................................................... 48

10.5 Butterfly References ........................................................................................... 51

10 Appendix A - GVI Species List ................................................................................................. 52

5

List of Figures

Figure 2.1.1 Position and number of individuals observed on the road bisecting the Yachana Reserve.

The order and direction of transects in Phase 094 was staggered throughout to avoid bias. Additionally,

while original collection times varied in Phase 092 and 093, Phase 094 data was collected exclusively at

800 or 1430.

Fig 2.2.1 Represents the locations of each mist-netting site within the Yachana Reserve. The pink dots

represent the ‘less disturbed’ sites of Laguna and Frontier, whilst the green dots represent the ‘more

disturbed’ sites of Cascada and Ficus. The blue circles represent required site separation outlined by

Barlow and Perez (2004) to ensure the sites are independent.

Fig 2.2.2 Percentage composition of bird families at each site

Fig. 2.2.3 Percentage composition of Manakins, Antbirds and Hummingbirds at each site

Figures 2.3.1 – 2.3.6 - Calling patterns for bird #1 by both observers for each day



Figure 5.3.1: Distribution of butterflies captured in 093 and 094, grouped by tribe and subtribe

Figure 5.3.2: PCA plot of butterflies, environmental variables (shown in red) and sampling sites (circles).

Figure 6.2.1: Dung Beetle Trapping Station

List of Tables

Table 2.1.1: The "Grand Total" column includes individuals recorded on all 29 1-hour walks conducted

during phases 092, 093, and 094.

Table 2.1.2: The seven most-sighted families (birds/hour) divided by phase. Phases 092, 093, and 094

represent 60, 50, 35 person hours of searching, respectively.

Table 2.2.1 Summary Mist-netting Information

Table 2.3.1 Percentage of agreement between observers one and two for each session, based upon calls

per minute

Table 2.3.2 Percentage of agreement between observers one and two for each session

Table 2.3.3 Weather incidences

Table 4.4.1 Number of individuals found in pitfalls in 094

Table 4.4.2 Number of individuals found on visual encounter surveys in 094

Table 4.4.3 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 6.2.1: Habitat type of each dung beetle sampling site

Table 6.3.1: Habitat Compared to Individuals Captured

Table 6.3.2: Comparison of Habitat to Species Richness

6

1 Introduction

The Rainforest Conservation and Community Development expedition operated by Global

Vision International (GVI) is located in the Yachana Reserve in the Napo province (0° 50'

45.47"S/ -77° 13' 43.65"W; 300-350m altitude), Amazonian region of Ecuador. The reserve is

legally-designated a Bosque Protector (Protected Forest) consisting of approximately 1000

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. It 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

Fig. 1.1

GVI Amazon

Rio Napo, Napo Province

7

large, stone and gravel based road which dissects the primary forest to the north and the

abandoned cacao plantations and grassland areas to the south.

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 TEFL classes (Teaching English as a Foreign Language) 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.

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

9

programmes conducted during the ten-week expedition from Friday 2nd October – Friday 11th

December 2009, at the Yachana Reserve

2 Avian Research

2.1 Bird Road Transects

2.1.1 Introduction

The road in the reserve is used regularly by buses and rancheras (local public transport) as well

as local people in trucks and on motorcycles. While roads adversely impact many understory

bird species in Amazonian forests (Laurance et. al., 2004; Develey & Stouffer, 2001), some

generalist species favour the open habitat areas offered along forest edges such as those

assosiated with roads. Although sometimes described “avifauna trash” (Stotz et al., 1996), their

frequency and abundance can be important indicators of habitat health.

A line-transect is an effective way to quantify avifauna along a linear feature such as a road.

With a constant pace and set number of observers, analysis can objectively incorporate relative

abundances and population fluctuations over time. Following this concept or idea, GVI has three

aims in this study: 1) To assess avifauna richness, abundance, and preferred habitats of

specific species along the road gradient; 2) To assess seasonal variability and the potential

presence of migrant species during the 2009 calendar year; 3) To make on-going additions to

the reserve species list.

2.1.2 Methods

Individual birds were recorded on a 3600m line-transect along the road bisecting the Yachana

Reserve. A total of 29 one-hour surveys have been completed since the project’s inception in

April 2009, seven of which took place during the 094 phase. Survey teams consisted of one

experienced staff member and four volunteers with binoculars and a field guide. The road

transect was marked every 20m and walked at exactly 1km/hr. All birds observed at a distance

of less than 25m from the road edge were recorded. Both visual and audio encounters were

noted, as was the direction of flight.

Some methodology was altered following the 093 phase: Instead of dividing the road into three

sections, the order and direction of transects was staggered throughout to avoid bias.

10

Additionally, while original collection times varied, phase 094 data was collected exclusively at

0800 or 1430 to standardize result outcomes over time.

2.1.3 Results

GVI completed seven road transects from 10th October 2009 to 10th November 2009, totalling 35

person-hours of labour. Data comprises of 275 individuals (7.9 birds/hour/person) representing

23 families and approximately 72 species. Cumulatively, 1293 birds in 30 families have been

recorded since the study’s inception in April 2009. Phases 092, 093, and 094 yielded 10.6, 7.7,

and 7.9 birds/hour, respectively. Table 2.1.1 summarizes recorded individuals by family group.

Icteridae, Tyrannidae, and Thaupidae continued to be very common on surveys, while

Hirundinidae and Apodidae were seen less than in previous phases. Seven new species were

added to the project list: Black-headed Parrot (Pionites melanocephala), Blue-necked Tanager

(Tangara cyanicollis), Great Kiskadee (Pitangus sulphuratus), Magpie Tanager (Cissopis

leveriana), Scale-breasted Woodpecker (Celeus grammicus), Tropical Kingbird (Tyrannus

tyrannus), and the Yellow Warbler (Dendroica petechia).

11

Birds-Sighted/hour by Family

Family Phase 094

All Phases

Total Individuals

Icteridae 2.49 2.28 331

Psittacidae 0.46 1.21 175

Hirundinidae 0.11 0.69 100

Apodidae 0.26 0.65 94

Ramphastidae 0.49 0.64 93

Tyrannidae 0.74 0.51 74

Thraupidae 0.63 0.51 74

Picidae 0.43 0.42 61

Corvidae 0.46 0.41 59

Bucconidae 0.29 0.34 49

Accipitridae 0.40 0.32 47

Trochilidae 0.23 0.21 30

Capitonidae 0.26 0.15 22

Tinamidae 0.14 0.10 15

Thamnophilidae 0.00 0.06 9

Falconidae 0.06 0.05 7

Cathartidae 0.00 0.05 7

Trogonidae 0.11 0.04 6

Columbidae 0.06 0.03 5

Troglodytidae 0.06 0.03 5

Nyctibiidae 0.03 0.03 5

Parulidae 0.09 0.03 4

Pipridae 0.03 0.03 4

Contingidae 0.00 0.03 4

Turdidae 0.03 0.02 3

Cuculidae 0.00 0.02 3

Dendrocolaptidae 0.03 0.01 2

Cracidae 0.00 0.01 2

Emberizidae 0.00 0.01 2

Rallidae 0.00 0.01 1

Total: 7.86 8.92 1293

Table 2.1.1: The "Grand Total" column includes individuals recorded on all 29 one hour walks

conducted during phases 092, 093, and 094.

Family Phase 092

Icteridae 3.5

Psittacidae 1.5

Hirundinidae 0.5

Apodidae 1.1

Ramphastidae 0.9

Tyrannidae 0.7

Thraupidae 0.3

Table 2.1.2: The seven most-sighted families (birds/hour) divided by phase. Phases 092, 093,

and 094 represent 60, 50, 35 person hours

Figure 2.1.1 Position and number

Reserve. The order and direction of transects in Phase 094 was staggered throughout to avoid

bias. Additionally, while original

was collected exclusively at 800 or 1430.

Phase

Phase 093

Phase 094

All Phases

0.7 2.5 2.3

1.4 0.5 1.2

1.3 0.1 0.7

0.4 0.3 0.6

0.5 0.5 0.6

0.1 0.7 0.5

0.7 0.6 0.5

sighted families (birds/hour) divided by phase. Phases 092, 093,

and 094 represent 60, 50, 35 person hours of searching, respectively.

Position and number of individuals observed on the road bisecting the Yachana


bias. Additionally, while original collection times varied in Phase 092 and 093, Phase 094 data

was collected exclusively at 800 or 1430.

12

sighted families (birds/hour) divided by phase. Phases 092, 093,

of individuals observed on the road bisecting the Yachana


collection times varied in Phase 092 and 093, Phase 094 data

13

2.1.4 Discussion

After nine months of sampling, seasonal trends in avifauna are beginning to emerge. Most

noticably, fewer birds per hour were sighted in Phases 093 and 094 compared to Phase 092.

This may be due to seasonal changes in weather, such as rainfall, sunlight, or temperature.

Changes in overall sightings may also be influenced by the foraging of social bird groups. For

example, Icterids (e.g. Russet-backed Oropendola [Psarocolius angustifrons], Yellow-rumped

Cacique [Cacicus cela]) and Psittacids (e.g parrots, parakeets, parrotlets) - the two most

commonly sighted bird families in this study - were seen less in Phases 093 and 094 (Table

2.1.2). Both groups exhibit social behavior and are unaffected by moderate human disturbance.

A change in their foraging routines, possibly based on food availability, could have influenced

sightings. Lastly, we cannot rule out changes in volunteer and staff personnel ability as potential

factors in bird sightings.

An impetus for changing the starting point and direction of transects in Phase 094 was to avoid

potential bias in observer attention span during the sixty-minute survey. In other words, the

peaks in bird sightings at 1700m and 600m-1000m and the troughs at 1400m and 2200m may

have been impacted by observer interest or lack thereof. Data collected during Phase 094

suggests this may have been the case (Figure 2.1.1): fewer peaks and troughs were observed,

and the only deviation from ≈10 birds/100m is found between 1000m-1100m. The new

collection method appears to more reliably show bird presence along transects and should

therefore be continued. This preliminary hypothesis will be tested if data collection continues

through the Phase 101.

Seven new species were recorded during Phase 094 surveys, indicating an asymptote in

species richness is not reached. Data collection should continue to make conclusions on the

lesser-seen families, and to complete a more thorough species list of roadside avifauna.

2.2 Mist Netting

2.2.1 Introduction

There is currently a lack of consensus between many studies examining the impacts of habitat

change on bird communities. Despite birds being the most studied and understood taxa in the

neotropics, a recent review of literature found that, pre-2008; only 17 studies examined the

value of secondary forest for tropical birds (Barlow et al. 2006). The majority of studies

conducted to date have concluded that secondary forests can support equivalent or high levels

14

of species richness compared to primary or relatively undisturbed forest (Barlow et al, 2006).

Despite these encouraging results, there are a whole host of problems with these existing

studies which make a strong conclusion of the value of secondary forest for Neotropical birds

impossible to determine (Gardner et al. 2006). For example, several of the studies attribute the

high species richness to the close proximity of primary habitat, resulting in primary species

being transiently recorded in secondary habitat. Several studies also lacked a good primary

forest baseline with which to compare their results (Barlow et al. 2006). This project aims to

address the problems highlighted by Gardner et al (2007), to compare understory bird

communities in the disturbed secondary patches of the Yachana Reserve with the relatively

undisturbed patches.

2.2.2 Methods

Study Plots

Four net locations were established around the reserve; two in relatively disturbed areas, two in

relatively undisturbed areas (see Fig. 2.2.1). The net locations were no closer than 500m apart

at their nearest point as Barlow and Peres (2004) concluded, based on recaptures of marked

individuals, that plots 500 m apart were spatially independent. The net locations were restricted

to trails within the reserve, as the hilly topography makes establishing nets in other locations

impossible without destroying large areas of native vegetation. Plots were random with respect

to tree fall gaps, fruiting trees or other factors which may influence capture rates.

Mistnetting

Understory mistnetting was used to examine the avifauna at each of the four sites within the

reserve. Each site was sampled for 65 to 70 hours between the 13th October and the 5th

December. Four 12 x 2.5m mist nets with 10-40m spacing (to allow for difficult topography) were

established at each site. All nets could be checked within a 10-15min period. Nets were opened

between 6.30am and 11.00am for four successive days, allowing extra hours or days to account

for periods of persistent wind or heavy rain. Nets were checked every half hour. All captures

were placed in a bird bag and returned to the banding station where they were identified to

species, weighed, measured and sexed whenever possible. All birds were banded to identify

recaptures, except hummingbirds, which have extremely delicate legs. Captured birds were

then released away from the net locations.

15

Vegetation Mapping

Two 20m x 20m vegetation map plots were established at each mist-net location. Each plot was

subjected to vegetation mapping following the guidelines outlined by Museo Ecuatoriano de

Ciencias Naturales (MECN), in Quito. In each plot four observers estimated the following

parameters; 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, fern density and plantation crop density.

2.2.3 Results

Vegetation Profiling

As yet the vegetation profiles have not been determined for each site. From this point on, the

Cascada and Ficus sites are considered ‘more disturbed’ and the Laguna and Frontier sites are

considered ‘less disturbed’. These classifications are based upon on-site observations and

Figure. 2.2.1. Map showing the location of each mist netting site

Fig 2.2.1 Represents the locations of each mist-netting site within the Yachana Reserve.

The pink dots represent the ‘less disturbed’ sites of Laguna and Frontier, whilst the green

dots represent the ‘more disturbed’ sites of Cascada and Ficus. The blue circles represent

required site separation outlined by Barlow and Perez (2004) to ensure the sites are

independent.

16

examination of the reserve map (see fig. 2.2.1). The Cascada and Ficus locations encompass

large sections of road and disturbed secondary forest, whereas, Laguna and Frontier locations

encompass principally relatively undisturbed forest.

Avifaunal Sampling

In total 127 birds were captured in 271 hours of mist-netting between the 13th of October 2009

and 5th December 2009.The number of indviduals caught at each site varied from 13-48

individuals. Each site was subjected to between 64 hours and 69.2 net hours of sampling. The

total number of individuals captured in the ‘more disturbed’ sites was 40, whereas the total

number of individuals captured in the ‘less disturbed’ sites was 87. The number of species

captured at the ‘less disturbed’ sites was also lower than captured in the more disturbed sites

(see table 2.2.1). The birds caught at each of the ‘more disturbed’ sites each represented only

five different bird families, where as birds caught at the ‘less disturbed’ sites represented eleven

and nine different bird families. Capture efficiencies, represented by number of individuals per

mist net hour, where also higher in the ‘less disturbed’ sites (0.56 and 0.75 indiv.h-1) in

comparison to the ‘more disturbed’ sites (0.39 and 0.19 indiv.h-1)

Table 2.2.1 Summary Mist-netting Information

More disturbed Less Disturbed

Total Cascada Ficus Laguna Frontier

Net Hours 69.16 68.88 69.20 64.00 271.24

Number of Individuals 27 13 39 48 127

Individuals per net hour 0.39 0.19 0.56 0.75 0.47

Total number of species 14 8 17 20 33

Total number of families 5 5 11 9 16

UID Birds 0 1 6 1 8

Due to the observed differences in total number of bird families encountered at each site, the

percentage composition individuals belonging to a particular family were examined at each site

(fig. 2.2.2). Woodcreepers (Dendrocolaptinae), Manakins (Pipridae), Antbirds (Thamnophilidae),

Hummingbirds (Trochilidae), Thrushes (Turdidae) and Tyrant Flycatchers (Tyrannidae) were

found to be present in both ‘less disturbed’ and ’more disturbed’ areas. Puffbirds (Bucconidae),

Barbets (Capitonidae), Grosbeaks (Cardinalidae), Falcons (Falconidae), Foliage Gleaners

(Furnariidae), Jacamars (Galbulidae), Tanagers (Thraupidae), and Wrens (Troglodytidae) were

found to be exclusive to the ‘less disturbed’ areas, Motmots (Momotidae) and Woodpeckers

(Picidae) were found exclusively in ‘more disturbed’ areas. However as the vast majority of

17

these records were based on the capture of one individual only, no strong conclusions can be

drawn.

Fig 2.2.2 Percentage composition of bird families at each site

The majority of birds captured belonged to one of three families; Manakins, Antbirds and

Hummingbirds. The percentage composition of individuals from each of these families against

the total number of individuals caught at each site was calculated (fig. 2.2.3). The percentage

composition of manakins found at each site was roughly 25% at all sites except Ficus, where it

was just 7.5%. The composition of hummingbirds appears slightly lower at ‘less disturbed’ sites

16 -18% in comparison to the ‘more disturbed’ sites 37- 46%. The distribution of Antbirds is

relatively stable across all sites 8-23%.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50P

uff

bir

ds

Ba

rbe

ts

Gro

sbe

ak

s

Wo

od

cre

ep

ers

Fa

lco

ns

Fo

lia

ge

Gle

an

ers

Jaca

ma

rs

Mo

tmo

ts

Wo

od

pe

cke

rs

Ma

na

kin

s

An

tbir

ds

Ta

na

ge

rs

Hu

mm

ing

bir

ds

Wre

ns

Th

rush

es

Ty

ran

t F

lyca

tch

ers

Percentages (%) per site

Cascada


Frontier


Laguna


Ficus

18

Fig. 2.2.3 Percentage composition of Manakins, Antbirds and Hummingbirds at each site

2.2.4 Discussion

Vegetation Profiling

Currently the disturbance status of each site has been estimated through on site observation

and examination of the reserve map, however this simply is not reliable enough. The

importance of vegetation structure in determining patterns of species diversity and abundance is

well established (Hawes et al. 2008). It is vitally important that each study site is vegetation

profiled in the immediate future or any subsequent findings will have little relevance.

Understory Mist-netting

Several differences between the ‘less disturbed’ and ‘more disturbed’ sites have been observed.

These include: number of species caught, number of individuals caught, number of families

represented, and percentage of individuals of a given family caught at each site in comparison

with the total number of individuals caught. However, the current sample size of 127 birds is

prohibitive of any statistically relevant analysis. The differences observed could be due to, but

not limited to: genuine differences in understory bird community richness and structure in each

area, seasonal variations in bird foraging patterns, different weather conditions, or simply a

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Manakins Pipridae

Antbirds Thamnophilidae

Hummingbirds Trochilidae

Frontier Laguna FicusCascada

19

function of the low number of birds in the data set. The only way to address these potential

factors is to increase the size of the data set through repeated sampling at each study site until

enough data is obtained. Until that point is reached, any conclusions will be pure speculation.

This method itself has proved itself to work very well. Although mist-netting has been found to

be generally less efficient than point counts, (Blake and Loiselle, 2001; Barlow et al., 2007) it

offers a method free from observer bias. This is particularly important when dealing with a high

turnover of non-professionally trained volunteers at the research camp. It is also a useful and

standardized technique to compare understory avifaunal communities composed of non-vocal

and secretive species (Blake and Loiselle 2000).

Future Work

The mist-netting project will be continued in its current form. If possible, the research could be

augmented with point counts to further strengthen the conclusions of the study as this method

will target vocal, non-understory birds.

2.3 Screaming Pihas

2.3.1 Introduction

Previous studies have shown how using non-specialist volunteers to conduct biological surveys

can be productive providing that the methods and techniques used are not over-complicated

and that sufficient training is given.This study uses non-specialist volunteers to study the calling

patterns of three male Screaming Pihas (Lipaugus vociferans) in the Yachana Reserve.

The Screaming Piha (Lipaugus vociferans) is a suboscine songbird in the family Cotingidae

found throughout much of Amazonia. They feed on both fruits and invertebrates and are

frequently heard with a distinctive loud ‘pee haw’ sound as the males gather in loosely formed

dispersed leks. These leks are referred to as ‘dispersed’ as the Screaming Piha (Lipaugus

vociferans) is a relatively dull bird with brownish coloration above and below and so relies on its

loud distinctive call to attract females. The vocalisation of the male Screaming Piha (Lipaugus

vociferans) typically consists of between none and three (normally two) low amplitude

introductory guttural notes usually followed by the namesake phrase - a high amplitude and high

pitched ‘pee haw’ of approximately one second length. With such a loud call the lek size can be

relatively well dispersed and has been shown to contain up to 30 males in a single lek.

20

The aim of this study was to:

• Assess the use of non-specialist volunteers in observational data collection.

2.3.2 Method

Data was collected over three days from the 10th - 12th November 2009. This followed from

preliminary trials which were carried out on the 23rd, 26th, 29th and 30th October 2009. The study

location was a lek within primary forest of the Yachana Reserve.

Three male Screaming Pihas in adjacent territories within the same lek were identified for use in

the study. Individuals were chosen based on the ease of clearly discerning the calls from three

neighbouring birds which were determined from the pilot studies.

On the three days of auditory observation three time periods each of two hours were studied:

06.30 – 08.30, 10.30 - 12.30 and 15.30 - 17.30. The start time of every loud ‘pee-haw’ phrase

was recorded to the nearest second for this study using synchronized stopwatches. Thus

isolated introductory syllables which do not lead onto the ‘pee haw’ phrase were ignored.

Times of calls for each bird were recorded independently by two observers at separate stations

(five metres apart) near the study subject. Thus for each bird a measure of inter-observer

reliability could be assessed using the two observations. Observers were asked to sit still to

minimise disturbance and allow a minimum of a ten minute lag time from arrival at observation

stations to the start of recording for disruption recovery. During this time observers were asked

to verify the location of their bird and its calls and, following this, not to communicate but to

record calls independently.

Weather

Weather observations were recorded by the observers during the recording sessions. They

were asked to note any extreme changes in weather such as rainfall, thunder and lightning.

2.3.3 Results

Volunteer Reliability

A score of inter-observer reliability was calculated for each of the three birds recorded over the

three day period. This was done by calculating the percentage of minutes that had the same

number of recorded calls by both observers (see Table 2.3.1). The result for bird one was

87.33%, bird two was 83.01% whilst bird three was significantly lower at 68.96%.

21

Table 2.3.1

Percentage of agreement between observers one and two for each session, based upon calls per minute

Day 1 Day 2 Day 3

Bird Morning

Mid-day

Afternoon

Morning

Mid-day

Afternoon

Morning

Mid-day

Afternoon

Average

1 80.17 85.95 96.69 75.21 91.74 99.17 71.90 92.56 92.56 87.33

2 69.42 88.43 81.82 76.03 73.55 88.43 85.95 91.74 91.74 83.01

3 87.60 26.45 87.60 26.45 60.33 94.21 88.43 69.42 80.17 68.96

When looking at each session individually it is notable that two of the sessions for bird three

show extremely low agreement in the number of calls per minute, showing a correlation of just

26.45% in both cases. It should be noted that one of the observers in both these sessions was

the same observer, and these were the only two sessions that they participated in.

In order to assess the reliability of these trends visually, graphs were plotted to show the

number of calls per minute for each bird, for each of the three days (see Figures 2.3.1, 2.3.18).

Each graph included the calling patterns for all three sessions (morning, mid-day and

afternoon). However, a graph was plotted for each of the two observers so that both recordings

can be observed visually. When looking at these graphs it appears that there is a strong

agreement between the majority of inter-observer cases, which supports the results shown from

the inter-observer percentages. However, when looking at the low percentages sessions for bird

three visually, which are mentioned above (26.45%), we can see that the general pattern is

quite similar despite the agreement of specific numbers within each minute being particularly

low (see graphs 13-16).

22


23

Figures 2.3.7 - 2.3.12 - Calling patterns for bird #2 by both observers for each day

24

Figures 2.3.13 - 2.3.18 - Calling patterns for bird #3 by both observers for each day

When we look at the inter-observer percentages for each session related to the total number of

calls in a session recorded by each of the observers as opposed to the calls per minute, we can

see that the agreement frequently lies above 90% (see table 2.3.2). The two sessions that

25

showed little agreement when considering calls per minute, now show agreements of greater

than 90%.

Table 2.3.2

Weather

Various periods were recorded by the observers of rain or thunder and are summarized in the

Table 2.3.3 below:

Table 2.3.3 – Weather Incidences

Day Session Time of

occurrence (mins)

Weather Number

of observers

Outcomes taken

1 2 19, 24 Wind 1

1 3 37-42 Thunder all

1 3 50 strong winds all

1 3 53 heavy rain all Abandoned - 63 mins

2 2 80,88 heavy wind all

2 3 22, 38 strong winds, thunder all

2 3 59 heavy rain all Abandoned - 67 mins

3 1 83-98 Rain 5

3 2 35 slight rain 3

3 2 72 Rain 4

The two major weather notes came on session three of both days one and two. On both

occasions strong winds and thunder were recorded to precede heavy rainfalls which resulted in

both recording sessions being abandoned after just over an hour of recording. This is a safety

measure which must be adhered to due to high occurrence of severely dangerous tree-falls

found within tropical forests at times of heavy rainfall.

Percentage of agreement between observers one and two for each session

Day 1 Day 2 Day 3

Bird Morning Mid-day Afternoon Morning Mid-day Afternoon Morning Mid-day Afternoon Average

1 94.39 98.25 96.97 94.34 100.00 96.43 97.13 99.50 98.82 97.31

2 97.00 99.81 62.00 99.01 97.96 97.40 95.80 80.79 94.23 91.56

3 94.24 99.78 99.65 91.99 91.45 94.87 98.85 89.08 95.00 94.99

26

2.3.4 Discussion

The results from the study do indicate that it is possible to make use of non-specialist volunteers

in assessing bird call patterns. The agreement between observers was generally of a high

percentage when considering both the calls per minute in each session and even higher when

looking at the total number of calls recorded within a session. The two sessions that displayed

very poor agreement (26.45%) were both conducted by one observer which was the same in

both sessions. These were the only two sessions that this particular observer conducted. It may

therefore be possible that this observer needed more training in recording the call at the correct

point or the observer failed to synchronize their watch to the exact same second as other

observers. This does highlight the importance in accuracy of synchronization and also in the

necessity of effective training of observers prior to the actual study period. Despite the poor

agreement in the number of calls each minute, these two sessions did show a high percentage

of agreement when looking at the total number of calls throughout the whole session. This

supports the idea that the observer was recording the wrong point of the calls or had not

synchronized accurately. When looking at the graphs for all three birds it can be seen visually

how similar the calling patterns recorded between the two observers is. The graphs look very

similar and appears to show the same calling patterns throughout all three sessions for all three

days and therefore strongly suggests that non-specialist volunteers can be a useful resource

when collecting observational data.

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 has proved to not

be sufficiently productive.

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 occurence of each incidence, the time, location, date,

species and any other key characteristics or notes are taken and later entered into a database

in camp.

27

3.3 Sightings

During this phase various mammal species were recorded incidentally, whilst groups were

participating in other survey work or walks in the forest. Incidental sightings included encounters

with the Amazon Red Squirrel (Sciurus sp.), Black Agouti (Dasyprocta fuliginosa), Black-

mantled Tamarins (Saguinus nigricollis), Coatis (Nasua nasua), Kinkajou (Potos flavus), Night

Monkeys (Aotus sp.), Common Opossum (Didelphis marsupialis), Water Opossum (Chironectes

minimus) and Water Rat (Nectomys squamipes). Also recorded were various unidentified small

rodents found in the amphibian pitfall traps. Tapir tracks have also been observed more than

once within the reserve in this expedition phase, close to Ficus and Columbia Trails, nearing the

reserve borders.

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).

Two recent multiple taxa assessments, conducted on the 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 15 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

28

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 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).

29

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.

4.3 Methods

Data was collected between the 10th October and the 3rd December 2009.

The herpetofauna in the Yachana Reserve exhibit different breeding and non-breeding habitats

and varying vagility; therefore, no one method would be sufficient to study their populations.

Consequently, a combination of pitfall trapping and visual encounter surveys were employed.

Using a combination of methods allowed a wider assemblage of species to be described

compared to the use of a single method.

Ten 75m transects in both the primary and abandoned cacao plantations were established.

Care was taken to space transects sufficiently to avoid psuedoreplication. Transects were

marked with coloured transect tape to avoid unnecessary habitat modification. Where possible,

the transects were located at least 10m from streams and 100m from forest edges to avoid

biases resulting from increases in species richness and abundance, which could result in

confusion about the true effect of structural habitat change on amphibian and reptile diversity.

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 GVI’s own preliminary investigations. Each

transect was searched by five/six observers (strip width = 6m, duration = 1h 30m).

Pitfall Trapping

Twelve pitfall arrays were established as well as transects in both primary and secondary forest.

Each array consisted of four 25L buckets with 8m long by 50cm high plastic drift fence

connecting them in linear shaped design. When open, the pitfalls were checked once a day.

30

Particular care was taken to ensure that sampling effort was equal for both primary and

secondary habitats. This was to ensure maximum comparability in the resultant data sets.

Any amphibians or reptiles encountered through either method were identified in the field using

available literature and then released. Any individual which could not be identified was taken

back to the GVI base camp for further analysis. A small proportion of the captured individuals,

including those that could not be identified, were anaesthetised with Lidocaine and fixed with

10% formalin. All preseserved specimens were transferred to MECN for assistance with

identification and stored there.

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 were strictly adhered to so as to ensure transmissions were not possible. This was

achieved by systematic cleaning of tools and equipment, and plastic bags were changed when

handling different individuals. Under no circumstances did amphibians or reptiles come in

contact with exposed human skin tissue.

Habitat Feature Mapping

Each transect/pitfall array was subjected to vegetation mapping following the guidelines outlined

by MECN in Quito. The following parameters were 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 were also measured at each site, with the assumption that

the number of plants with small dbh is greater in degraded, secondary forests, whereas primary

forests show increasing numbers of plants of larger dbh (Pearman, 1997; Rodel et al. 2004).

4.4 Results

Species Encountered in 094

During this phase, 386 identified reptile and amphibian individuals were encountered,

comprising 25 species of amphibian and 12 species of reptile.

31

Pitfalls in Expedition 094

Table 4.4.1: Number of individuals found in pitfalls in 094

Amphibians and

reptiles Amphibians Reptiles

Total 181 144 37

Visual Encounter Surveys 094

Table 4.4.2: Number of individuals found on visual encounter surveys in 094

Amphibians and


Total primary

(approx 1350 mins survey

time with 5/6 searchers)

205 192 13

Species Encountered Overall in the Project So Far:

During the total project to date, 1195 identified reptile and amphibian individuals have been

encountered.

Pitfalls

Table 4.4.3: Number of individuals found in pitfall traps in total in the project so far

Amphibians and


Total 538 447 91

Visual Encounter Surveys

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

Amphibians and


Total

(approx 2970 mins survey

time with 5/6 searchers)

657 610 47

32

4.5 Discussion

The amphibian and reptile work continues to provide a wealth of species which are continuing to

show that some species are more prevalent than others and there are certainly some

differences in the numbers and types of species found within different areas of the reserve. The

amphibians Ameerga bilinguis, Pristimantis kichwarum, Pristimantis lanthanites, Bolitoglossa

peruvianus (Dwarf-climbing Salamander) and the lizard Lepsoma parietale are still found in

greater numbers than other species in various habitat types around the reserve.

It should be noted that Pristimantis ockendeni has recently been identified as three different

species and the species found within this reserve has been identified as Pristimantis kichwarum.

This identification has been made by observations of morphological features and verification of

photographs by specialists working on the initial identification of these species.

The methods used within the past ten weeks will continue into the next phase so that changes

in species assemblages can be observed over an annual period of time.

The resultant analysis which will be used when a greater amount of data has been gathered will

involve multivariate analysis such as principal component analysis and also decision tree

analysis that may be applied to the development of a model used to determine the types of

amphibians and reptiles found in specific habitat types.

5 Butterfly Research

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

33

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.

Insects represent over half of global diversity yet few studies exist to show the impact of small-

scale disturbance on these populations (Hamer et al., 2004). 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 locals,

tourists and groups of GVI volunteers. This study investigates the impact (if any) of disturbance

caused by road and trail use on nymphalid butterfly communities within the Yachana Reserve.

5.2 Methods

In this study, we utilized two 200m transects on the Frontier and Colombia Trails. In order to

assess the impact of the trails on fruit-feeding nymphalid butterfly communities each sampling

site located on the trail was paired with a site 75 m off in the undisturbed forest. Fruit-feeding

nymphalid butterflies have the advantage of being easy to sample using traps baited with rotting

fruit (Ramos, 2000) and represent 40-55% of nymphalid butterfly species (Devries and Walla,

1999). Each transect was set up perpendicular to the road running through the reserve in order

to measure disturbance associated with the road. In total, there were four road sites (trap # 1, 2,

11, 12), eight trail sites (odd numbers 3-19) and eight forest sites (even numbers (4-20).

Two 14 day sampling periods were run in 094 and traps were checked daily in the afternoon. At

each site, two baited traps were suspended approximately 5m apart with the base hanging 1-

1.5m above the ground. Traps were baited with two tablespoons of mashed, fermented banana;

bait which was changed every three days. Bait was prepared following the methods of DeVries

and Walla (1999). All butterflies captured were identified in the field by GVI staff and volunteers,

marked on the underwing with a dot-code to monitor recaptures and dispersal among sampling

sites, then released. Due to identification difficulties, all individuals from the subfamily Ithominae

were grouped as Ithomine species.Triplicate measurements of light levels, relative humidity and

temperature were taken at each sampling site.

Statistical Analysis

Single factor ANOVAs were used to evaluate differences in tribe

sites. Principal components analysis (PCA) was conducted in order to assess the similarity of

butterfly communities among sites in multivariate space. Microsoft Excel was used to perform

the ANOVA analysis and CANOCO v4.5 was u

5.3 Results

To date, three butterfly sampling periods

traps x 42 days). In total, 459 individual butterflies have been captured comprising 79 species,

35 genera and 17 tribes or subtribes. Of these, 21.1% were from the Euptychiini subtribe, 20.7%

were Epicaliinis, 13.3% were Preponinis and 12.0% were Brassolinis (Figure 1).

hewitisoni and Archaeoprepona demophon

respectively.

In this phase alone, four species new to the reserve’s species list were trapped and identified:

Catoblepia cassiope (Satyrinae

Eriphanes mandana (Riodinidae)

species captured in the last phase have been identified

myncea, Magneuptychia analis, Pareuptychia hesionides.

Figure 5.3.1: Distribution of butterflies captured in 093 and 094, grouped by tribe and subtribe

Single factor ANOVAs were used to evaluate differences in tribe abundances between sampling



the ANOVA analysis and CANOCO v4.5 was used for PCA.

butterfly sampling periods have been completed, resulting in 1680 trap days (40



Preponinis and 12.0% were Brassolinis (Figure 1).

Archaeoprepona demophon made up 10.2% of all butterflies captured,

species new to the reserve’s species list were trapped and identified:

(Satyrinae - Brassolini), Enphanis automedon (Satyrinae

(Riodinidae) and Memphis offa (Charaxinae – Anaeini)

species captured in the last phase have been identified Chloreuptychia Agatha,

myncea, Magneuptychia analis, Pareuptychia hesionides.

1: Distribution of butterflies captured in 093 and 094, grouped by tribe and subtribe

34

abundances between sampling



, resulting in 1680 trap days (40



Preponinis and 12.0% were Brassolinis (Figure 1). Nessaea

made up 10.2% of all butterflies captured,

species new to the reserve’s species list were trapped and identified:

(Satyrinae - Brassolini),

Anaeini). Additionally, 4

Chloreuptychia Agatha, Euptychia

1: Distribution of butterflies captured in 093 and 094, grouped by tribe and subtribe

35

Of the 14 tribes and subtribes captured, a stastical difference among sites was found only for

the Euptychiini subtribe (F2,17= 3.59, p <0.001). The majority of Euptychiini species were found

at the road sites (n=56), followed by the forest (n=30) and the trails (n=14).

Principal components analysis was conducted in order to assess the similarity of butterfly

communities among sites in multivariate space. PCA axis 1 and 2 accounted for 90% and 9% of

the total variation, respectively. Figure 5.3.2 shows that all three sampling habitats (road, trail

and forest) plot very differently on both axis 1 and 2, with the trail and forest sites more similar

than the road. The road site correlates highly with light and temperature. Butterflies from the

tribes Anaeini, Limentidini and subtribe Eutychiini (tribe Satyrini) plot heavily towards the road

site, along with light and temperature. The Ageroniini, Preponini and Nymphalini butterflies plot

towards the trail habitat and Ithomine species, Brassolini, Morphini and Haeterini plot towards

the forest sites. Butterflies from the Epicaliini tribe plot close to 0 on PCA axis 2, indicating no

difference in the number of captures between the trail and forest sites.

Fig. 5.3.2

36

Figure 5.3.2: PCA plot of butterflies, environmental variables (shown in red) and sampling sites

(circles). Tribes with fewer than three individuals were removed from the graphical presentation,

resulting in the elimination of Coeini, Eurybiini, Euselasiini and Mesosemiini.

5.4 Discussion

Although further study is necessary, the results of this study suggest that both the road and

trails in the Yachana Reserve are affecting and changing the local butterfly communities. As

expected, the most drastic results were seen between the road sites and the forested sites. The

creation of the road through the reserve has fragmented the forest and created an edge with

intense light levels (more than double those of the trail and forest sites), that is warmer and less

humid than the surrounding forest. These conditions could certainly pose a barrier to the

dispersal of certain butterfly species. Euptychiini species, often found along forest edges

(DeVries, 1987), were significantly more abundant at the road traps. Limentidini (Adelpha sp.)

were only observed along the road, and were often the only butterflies seen on very hot and

sunny days.

The 094 sampling period was conducted during the dry season which could have impacted the

butterflies collected as some species are highly seasonal (Hamer, 1997). The weather during

the 094 sampling periods were much hotter (reaching 41oC in the sun) and drier than in 093.

Species, such as Archaeoprepona amphimachus and Memphis arachne were only trapped in

094. Additionally, fewer individuals (275 in 093 vs. 184 in 094) were captured in the four weeks

of sampling conducted in 094 when compared to the two week sampling period in 093. In order

to account for seasonal variation, this project should continue with the same sampling protocol

to include a full year of sampling, longer if possible.

6 Dung Beetle Research

6.1 Introduction

Dung beetles (Order Coleoptera, Family Scarabaeidae, Subfamily Scarabaeinae) are

particularly vulnerable to habitat fragmentation and changes in habitat and fauna, this sensitivity

allows them to be extremely useful as indicators of ecosystem health (Halffter et al. 1992; Klein

1989). For these reasons their use as indicator species for Neotropical habitat disturbance

research has increased in recent years.

37

An omnipresent component of tropical biotas, dung beetles perform constructive ecosystem

functions. Dung beetles are primarily associated with mammals; they are indicators of

mammalian abundance and possibly diversity. Nevertheless, dung beetles’ functions in

ecological systems go far beyond the status of an indicator. 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). (Hanski & Cambefort 1991; Halffter & Matthews 1966; Estrada et al. 1991). Due to their

influence, the decline in dung beetle abundance and diversity may have cascading effects on

the environment.

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 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).

Regeneration and restoration of forests through conservation efforts may mitigate some current

deforestation; however, a number of major obstacles still constrain rainforest regeneration.

According to several studies, the most significant factor in regeneration is the transport of seeds

to deforested sites (Young et al.1987, Pannell 1989, Nepstad et al. 1991, Buschbacher et al.

1992, Chapman & Chapman 1999, Holl 1999). Monitoring dung beetle assemblages in their

associated habitats is essential in conservation projects that aim to maintain the regeneration

ability of forest fragments, and ecosystem health (Andresen, 2003).

In this study, we are surveying dung beetles in tropical rainforest forest fragments located in the

Ecuadorian Amazon at the Yachana Reserve, to examine the effects of habitat fragmentation on

species diversity and abundance of these beetles.

38

This ongoing research addresses two main questions in our study at the reserve: (1) Does

habitat, isolation, or the density of trees of a fragment affect species richness, and abundance?

(2) Does fragmentation, isolation, or tree density affect the abundance of the dominant species?

6.2 Methods

Nine sites were chosen at random and marked throughout the Yachana Reserve during Phase

092, 2009. Each site contained four baited pitfall traps, each positioned on the corner of a 50m x

50m grid (refer to Figure 6.2.1), in order to minimize trap interference and the effect of wind

upon trap detectability (Larsen and Forsyth, 2005). Five sites were placed within primary

rainforest and four within the secondary matrix. This allowed direct comparisons to be made

between these two habitat types (refer to Table 6.2.1). Individual trap catches were pooled

together for each site. Two sites were exposed at one time (a trapping station from the primary

forest sites and a trapping station from the secondary forest sites), in random combinations, so

as to minimize the effect of weather variability upon overall catch data. During phase 094 each

habitat was sampled seven times, at trapping stations spread throughout the habitat sites. Traps

were emptied every 24 hours. Each 24-hour sample from a trap was considered a single trap

day. Trapping periods lasted 48 hours. Beetles were identified and confirmed with assistance of

specialists from the MECN in Quito. Beetles measuring ≥ 13 mm were considered as large.

Voucher specimens are temporarily held at GVI’s workstation within the Yachana Reserve.

Table 6.2.1: Habitat type of each dung beetle sampling site

Site Habitat Type

DB1 Primary rainforest/Less disturbed





DB6 Secondary rainforest

DB7 Grassland with intermittent trees, bordered by secondary forest

DB8 Grassland with intermittent trees, bordered by secondary forest

DB9 Recovering Cacao plantation

39

Figure 6.2.1: Dung Beetle Trapping Station

Each pitfall trap is constructed of a 16oz plastic container, baited with a dung ball suspended

above it. Containers were placed in a hole dug in the ground so that the top was flush with the

surrounding soil, allowing beetles to fall into the trap. All leaf litter and vegetation was removed

in a 25cm radius around each trap, as this was found to affect trap efficiency during preliminary

investigations, (see Phase Report 091). Traps were filled with an inch of water containing scent-

free liquid detergent in order to increase viscosity and to prevent beetles from escaping. Fresh

dung, used as bait, was collected from a horse on the morning of baiting the traps. 50cc of bait

was suspended in muslin netting 5cm above the lip of each trap, held in place by string and

suspended at the end of an angled stick placed in the ground. A plate was positioned 5cm

above the top of the bait ball, using three upright sticks, in order to prevent rain and beetles from

landing directly on the dung bait.

Habitat Feature Mapping

Species occupy a particular habitat for breeding because the habitat contains certain

environmental factors that allow a species to carry out its life history (Hilden 1965, James et al.

1984). Vegetation structure is of considerable importance to dung beetle species habitat

(MacArthur and MacArthur 1961, Hilden 1965, James 1971, Cody 1981, 1985). Some dung

beetle species are specifically adapted to a specific vegetation structure that meets their

foraging requirements (Hilden 1965, Robinson and Holmes 1982, Cody 1985). To accurately

40

assess dung beetle behavior, a thorough knowledge of the vegetation structure of the habitats

that they occupy is critical.

In most studies of habitat selection, the vegetation structure of occupied sites is compared to

unoccupied sites and sampling is usually done in one general location within a species range

(e.g., Haggerty 1986, 1998, Dunning and Watts 1990, Plentovich et al. 1998). Although this

method may indicate the major features that determine occupancy, it does not necessarily

indicate those features that may be the most critical for occupancy.

Another approach, and the one used in this study, is to compare the vegetation structure of

occupied sites from a broad geographic perspective (James et al. 1984). If it is assumed that a

species has similar foraging and nest-site selection behaviors throughout its range, then we can

expect to see similarities in the vegetation structure of different localities, even though other

variables (e.g., floristics, tree age, management practices) may be different. Similarities and

differences in the vegetation structure from different localities may help identify structural

features that are more or less critical for occupancy, respectively. Furthermore, this approach

may give a better understanding of the vegetation structure that may constrain the distribution of

a species (James et al. 1984, Parrish 1995).

Vegetation profiling of nine sites within the Yachana Reserve were performed in October 2009.

This profiling process is a part of a larger study, and will be continued during every dung beetle

sampling event in efforts to properly monitor any changes between habitat and species

(Haggerty 1986, 1998). Vegetation mapping was performed at each pitfall trap on a transect

station. To insure an appropriate level of independence, data from sample circles for each site

were pooled and the site was used as the sample unit in all statistical analyses.

Seven variables were measured at each trapping location using the methods of James and

Shugart (1970) and Wiens (1973) (Table 1). A sample grid was created, placed directly over the

desired pitfall trap location. Grid lines were extended 15 feet, in each of the four cardinal

directions. Quadrants (I-IV) were established to ensure the most accurate data recording. Tree

(dbh >15 cm) density was determined by counting and measuring the number of live and dead

trees within the sample plot. Percent canopy and understory canopy coverage were determined

through estimation. Vegetation density was measured by counting the number of vegetation hits

along the quadrant tape markers placed on the ground. Woody, shrub, grass, and litter covers

percentage were estimated by noting if these vegetation types came in contact with a vertically

41

held rod that was placed at ten equally spaced points. Litter depth was measured within 6 cm of

the base of a vertically held measurement tool. Soil samples were taken at four different

locations within the established quadrants and were then characterized and classified using the

USCS (Unified Soil Classification System).

6.3 Results and Discussion

Habitat Structure

Currently the disturbance status of each site has been estimated through on site observation

and examination of the reserve map, however this simply is not reliable enough. The

importance of vegetation structure in determining patterns of species diversity and abundance is

well established (Hawes et al. 2008). The vegetation mapping of each trapping station has

comenced, and will continue during each trapping phase until beetle sampling is complete.

Pitfall Trap Sampling

During Phase 094 the baited pitfall traps captured a total of 2,548 individuals comprised of 36

species and seven genera within 528 hours of trapping. Sampling occurred from the 22nd

October 2009 – 7th December 2009. The highest catch yielded 801 individuals comprised of 16

differenct species within a 48 hour trapping period, located (DB9 recovering Cacao farm) within

the secondary matrix. The lowest catch yielded twelve individuals, comprised of four different

species after a 48 hour trapping period, also (DB8 - Buena Vista grassland) within the

secondary matrix (refer to Table 3).

Table 6.3.1: Habitat Compared to Individuals Captured

Primary Undisturbed Individuals

Secondary

Disturbed Individuals

DB1- Ficus 158 DB6- Ridge 550

DB2- Upper B-loop 603 DB7- Buena Vista 208

DB3- Inca 81 DB8 -Buena Vista 12

DB4- Upper Frontier 20 DB9 -Cacao Grove 801

DB5- Ficus (road) 115

Total 977 Total 1571

There are high variations in the number of captured individuals between the undisturbed

(primary) and more disturbed (secondary) trapping sites. When comparing the highest two

42

yields of 603 (DB2) and 158 (DB1) in the undisturbed forest, to the two highest yields in the

more disturbed forest matrix, 801 (DB9) and 550 (DB6), there is a difference of 590 individuals,

representing 60.38% of the total individuals captured in the undisturbed sites.

Habitat Specificity and Assemblage Similarity

Early results of this study offer an interesting comparison with the effects of primary -

undisturbed forest and disturbed – secondary forests on Neotropical dung beetle assemblages.

In contrast to what was predicted, primary – undisturbed rainforest and secondary – disturbed

rainforest habitats are representing large zones of mixing or gradation of dung beetle

assemblages, unlike the assumption of an abrupt assemblage turnover between habitats. Of

the 36 species captured, all species but one (Oxysternon sp.1) were shared between the

primary-undisturbed forest and the adjacent disturbed – secondary habitats. Oxysternon sp.1

was captured in trapping station DB9 in the disturbed – secondary matrix.

As previously mentioned, beetle species richness and abundance differed very slightly between

primary and secondary growth habitats (refer to Table 6.3.2). When averaging the total number

of species captured in each habitat, the primary - undisturbed habitat held twelve species while

the secondary, more disturbed habitat, averaged at 14.25 species per location. There is not a

significant difference between species richness when comparing the two habitats. However,

there are significant differences in species richness in trapping stations within the same habitat

(refer to Table 6.3.2).

Table 6.3.2: Comparison of Habitat to Species Richness

Site Number of Species

Primary- Undisturbed

Ficus 16

Upper Bloop 15

Inca 7

Upper Frontier 9

Ficus (road) 13

Mean number of Species 12

Secondary –Disturbed

Ridge 22

43

Buena Vista 15

Buena Vista 4

Cacao Grove 16

Mean number of Species 14.25

Habitat crossover in the associated beetle fauna may suggest that most dung beetles in the

community are not completely habitat specialists and possibly host specialists. Local variation in

abiotic factors such as soil texture, moisture, and forest structure do influence the occurrence

and relative abundance of scarabaeines (Howden & Nealis 1975, 1978; Halffter & Edmonds

1982); however thus far data suggests the former. It is understood that conclusions may be

subject to change due to the insufficient amount of data collected this far into the survey.

Body Size & Abundance

On average, beetles in the disturbed – secondary matrix were significantly smaller than those in

the primary - undisturbed (Galante et al. 1991). Smaller species may be better able to shed

excess heat during diurnal activity in hotter areas with less canopy coverage. Heinrich and

Bartholomew (1979) have demonstrated that dung beetle species’ ability to thermoregulate can

affect both inter and intraspecific competitive ability. Body size has also been shown to influence

nesting strategies and intraspecific interactions (Halffter & Edmonds 1982). Larger beetles from

the families Dichotomius and Eurysternusm were captured more frequently and in higher

abundance in trapping stations with denser canopies. Smaller species from the family

Canthidium and Onthophagus were found in higher abundances in the disturbed - secondary

habitats.

To date, trapping has only occurred during Ecuador’s Amazon drier season; because this

research project is examining yearly trends, the data set requires additional sampling during the

wet season for complete resultant analyses. Additional beetle sampling is planned to continue.

Full analyses using principal component analysis will be applied to the completed data set to

seek correlations between dung beetle assemblages and their associated habitats at the

Yachana Reserve.

44

7 Community Development Projects

7.1 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 achiote-painting and other cultural traditions. 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.

7.2 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 throughout the ten

weeks of the 094 phase. There were approximately ten children in the younger age class on

average and twenty children in the older age class. Classes this phase focused on a new

curriculum which focussed on re-covering the basics such as greetings, numbers, colours,

directions, etc.

8 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.

� 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.

� The butterfly project will continue, examining the effects of road and trail disturbance upon

fruit feeding species, in relation to changes in vegetation.

� The dung beetle research will continue through the following phase.

� GVI will continue to participate in exchanges with the Yachana Technical High School.

45

� 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. An expansion of teaching will branch out with weekend lessons at

another local community called Puerto Salazar. These lessons will be the basis for a future

opportunity of more structured teaching times within this community.

9 References

9.1 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.

46

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.

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).

9.2 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.

47

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.

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.

9.3 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.

48

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.

Spector, S. & Forsyth, A. B. (1998). Indicator taxa for biodiversity assessment in the vanishing

tropics. Conservation Biology Series 1: 181-209.

9.4 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.

49

K. E. Bell and M. A. Donnelly (2006) Influence of Forest Fragmentation on Community

Structure of Frogs and Lizards in Northeastern Costa Rica Conservation Biology Volume 20,

No. 6, 1750–1760

Bridges, C.M., Semlitsch, R.D., (2000). Variation in pesticide tolerance of tadpoles among and

within species of Ranidae and patterns of amphibian decline. Conservation Biology 14, 1490–

1499.

Broomhall, S.D., Osborne, W.S., Cunningham, R.B. (2000). Comparative effects of ambient

ultraviolet-B radiation on two sympatric species of Australian frogs. Conservation Biology 14,

420–427.

Samuel A. Cushman (2006) Effects of habitat loss and fragmentation on amphibians: A review

and prospectus Biological Conservation 128; 231 –240

Donnelly, M. A., M. H. Chen, and G. C.Watkins. (2005) Sampling amphibians and reptiles in the

Iwokrama Forest ecosystem. Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia

154:55–69.

Toby A. Gardner*, Jos Barlow, Carlos A. Peres (2007a) Paradox, presumption and pitfalls in

conservation biology: The importance of habitat change for amphibians and reptiles Biological

Conservation 138; 166–179

T. A. Gardner, 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.

50

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.

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.

51

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.

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.

52

10 Appendix A - GVI Species List

January 2010

** New additions to the Yachana Species List in phase 094

Class Aves

Apodiformes

Caprimulgiformes

Charadriiformes

Ciconiformes

Columbiformes

Coraciiformes

Cuculiformes

Falconiformes

Galliformes

Gruiformes

Passeriformes

Piciformes

Psittaciformes

Strigiformes

Tinamiformes

Trogoniformes

Class Mammalia

Carnivora

Chiroptera

Marsupialia

Megalonychidae

Primates

Rodentia

Xenarthra

CLASS SAUROPSIDA

Crocodilians

Iguanas

Lizards

Snakes

CLASS AMPHIBIA

CLASS ARACHNIDA

CLASS INSECTA

Coleoptera

Lepidoptera

Lycaenidae

Noctuidae

Nymphalidae

Papilionidae

Riodinidae

Uranidae

53

CLASS AVES

Apodiformes

Apodidae Swifts

Chaetura cinereiventris Grey-rumped Swift

Streptoprocne zonaris White-collared Swift

Caprimulgiformes

Caprimulgidae Nightjars and Nighthawks

Nyctidromus albicollis Pauraque

Nyctiphrynus ocellatus Ocellated Poorwill

Nyctibiidae Potoos

Nyctibius aethereus Long-tailed Potoo

Nyctibius grandis Great Potoo

Nyctibius griseus Common Potoo

Charadriiformes

Recurvirostridae Plovers and Lapwings

Hoploxypterus cayanus Pied Plover

Terenotriccus erythrurus Ruddy-tailed Flycatcher

Tityra cayana Black-tailed Tityra

Scolopacidae Sandpipers, Snipes and Phalaropes

Actitis macularia Spotted Sandpiper

Tringa solitaria Solitary Sandpiper

Ciconiformes

Ardeidae Herons, Bitterns, and Egrets

Ardea cocoi Cocoi Heron

Bubulcus ibis Cattle Egret

Butorides striatus Striated Heron

Egretta caerulea Little Blue Heron

Egretta thula Snowy Egret

Tigrisoma lineatum Rufescent Tiger-Heron

Cathartidae American Vultures

Cathartes aura Turkey Vulture

Cathartes melambrotus Greater Yellow-headed Vulture

Coragyps atractus Black Vulture

Sarcoramphus papa King Vulture

Columbiformes

Columbidae Pigeons and Doves

Claravis pretiosa Blue Ground-Dove

Columba plumbea Plumbeous Pigeon

Geotrygon Montana Ruddy Quail-Dove

Leptotila rufaxilla Gray-fronted Dove

Coraciiformes

Alcedinidae Kingfishers

Chloroceryle amazona Amazon Kingfisher

Chloroceryle americana Green Kingfisher

Chloroceryle inda Green and Rufous Kingfisher

Megaceryle torquata Ringed Kingfisher

Bucconidae Puffbirds

Chelidoptera tenebrosa Swallow-winged Puffbird

Bucco macrodactylus Chestnut-capped Puffbird

Malacoptila fusca White-chested Puffbird

Monasa flavirostris Yellow-billed Nunbird

Monasa morphoeus White-fronted Nunbird

Monasa nigrifrons Black-fronted Nunbird

Notharchus macrorynchos White-necked Puffbird

Capitonidae New World Barbets

Capita aurovirens Scarlet-crowned Barbet

Capita auratus Gilded Barbet

Eubucco bourcierii Lemon-throated Barbet

Corvidae Crows, Jays, and Magpies

Cyanocorax violaceus Violaceous Jay

Cotingidae Cotinga

Ampelioides tschudii Scaled Fruiteater

Cotinga cayana Spangled Cotinga

Cotinga maynana Plum-throated Cotinga

Gynnoderus foetidus Bare-necked Fruitcrow

Iodopleura isabellae White-browed Purpletuft

Querula purpurata Purple throated Fruitcrow

Hirundinidae Swallows and Martins

Atticora fasciata White-banded Swallow

Stelgidopteryx ruficollis Southern rough-winged swallow

Tachycineta albiventer White-winged Swallow

Momotidae Motmots

Baryphthengus martii Rufous Motmot

Electron platyrhynchum Broad-billed Motmot

Momotus momota Blue-crowned Motmot

Parulidae New World Warblers

Basileuterus fulvicauda Buff-rumped Warbler

Dendroica aestiva** Yellow Warbler**

Dendroica fusca Blackburnian Warbler

Dendroica striata Blackpoll Warbler

Picidae Woodpeckers and Piculets

54

Campephilus melanoleucos Crimson-crested Woodpecker

Campephilus rubricollis Red-necked Woodpecker

Celeus elegans Chestnut Woodpecker

Celeus flavus Cream-coloured Woodpecker

Celeus grammicus Scale-breasted Woodpecker

Chrysoptilus punctigula Spot-breasted Woodpecker

Dryocopus lineatus Lineated Woodpecker

Melanerpes cruentatus Yellow-tufted Woodpecker

Picumnus lafresnayi Lafresnaye's piculet

Veniliornis fumigatus Smoky-brown Woodpecker

Veniliornis passerinus Little Woodpecker

Pipridae Manakins

Chiroxiphia pareola Blue-backed Manakin

Chloropipo holochlora Green Manakin

Dixiphia pipra White-crowned Manakin

Lepidothrix coronata Blue-crowned Manakin

Machaeropterus regulus Striped Manakin

Manacus manacus White-bearded Manakin

Pipra erythrocephala Golden-headed Manakin

Tyranneutes stolzmanni Dwarf Tyrant Manakin

Polioptilidae Gnatcatchers and Gnatwrens

Microbates cinereiventris Tawny-faced Gnatwren

Ramphastidae Toucans

Pteroglossus azara Ivory-billed Aracari

Pteroglossus castanotis Chestnut-eared Aracari

Pteroglossus inscriptus Lettered Aracari

Pteroglossus pluricinctus Many-banded Aracari

Ramphastos tucanus White-throated Toucan

Ramphastos vitellinus Channel-billed Toucan

Selenidera reinwardtii Golden-collared Toucanet

Troglodytidae Wrens

Campylorhynchus turdinus Thrush-like Wren

Donacobius atricapillus Black-capped Donacobius

Henicorhina leucosticta White-breasted Wood-wren

Microcerculus marginatus Southern Nightingale-Wren

Thryothorus coraya Coraya Wren

Turdidae Thrushes

Catharus ustulatus Swainson's Thrush

Turdus albicollis White-necked Thrush

Turdus lawrencii Lawrence's Thrush

Tyrannidae Tyrant Flycatchers

Attila spadiceus Bright-rumped Attila

Colonia colonus Long-tailed Tyrant

Conopias cinchoneti Lemon-browed Flycatcher

Conopias parva Yellow-throated Flycatcher

Contopus virens Eastern Wood-Pewee

Hemitriccus zosterops White-eyed Tody-tyrant

Legatus leucophaius Piratic Flycatcher

Leptopogon amaurocephalus Sepia-capped Flycatcher

Lipaugus vociferans Screaming Piha

Megarynchus piangu Boat-billed Flycatcher

Mionectes oleagineus Ochre-bellied Flycatcher

Myiarchus ferox Short-crested Flycatcher

Myiarchus tuberculifer Dusky-capped Flycatcher

Myiobius barbatus Whiskered Flycatcher

Myiodynastes luteiventris Sulphur-bellied Flycatcher

Myiodynastes maculatus Streaked Flycatcher

Myiozetetes granadensis Gray-capped Flycatcher

Myiozetetes luteiventris Dusky-chested Flycatcher

Myiozetetes similis Social Flycatcher

Ochthornis littoralis Drab Water-Tyrant

Pachyramphus marginatus Black-capped Becard

Pitangus sulphuratus Great Kiskadee

Rhynchocyclus olivaceus Olivaceous Flatbill

Rhytipterna simplex Grayish Mouner

Tityra inquisitor Black-crowned Tityra

Tityra semifasciata Masked Tityra

Todirostrum chrysocrotaphum Yellow-browed Tody-Flycatcher

Tolmomyias poliocephalus Gray-crowned Flatbill

Tolmomyias viridiceps Olive-faced Flatbill

Tyrannulus elatus Yellow-crowned Tyrannulet

Tyrannus melancholicus Tropical Kingbird

Tyrannus savana Fork-tailed Flycatcher

Tyrannus tyrannus Eastern Kingbird

Zimmerius gracilipes Slender-footed Tyrannulet

Vireonidae Vireos

Vireo olivaceus Red-eyed Vireo

Cuculiformes

Cuculidae Cuckoos and Anis

Crotophaga ani Smooth-billed Ani

Crotophaga major Greater Ani

Piaya cayana Squirrel Cockoo

Piaya melanogaster Black-bellied Cuckoo

Opisthocomidae Hoatzin

Opisthocomus hoazin Hoatzin

Falconiformes

Accipitridae Kites, Eagles, Hawks, and Osprey

Buteo magnirostris Roadside Hawk

Buteo polyosoma Variable Hawk

Elanoides forficatus Swallow-tailed Kite

Harpagus bidentatus Double-toothed Kite

Ictinia plumbea Plumbeous Kite

55

Leptodon cayanensis Gray-headed Kite

Leucopternis albicollis White Hawk

Leucopternis melanops Black-faced Hawk

Pandion haliaetus Osprey

Falconidae Falcons and Caracaras

Daptrius ater Black Caracara

Falco rufigularis Bat Falcon

Herpetotheres cachinnans Laughing Falcon

Ibycter americanus Red-throated Caracara

Micrastur gilvicollis Lined Forest-Falcon

Micrastur semitorquatus Collared Forest-Falcon

Milvago chimachima Yellow-headed Caracara

Galliformes

Cracidae Curassows, Guans, and Chachalacas

Nothocrax urumutum Nocturnal Curassow

Ortalis guttata Speckled Chachalaca

Penelope jacquacu Spix's Guan

Odontophoridae New World Quails

Odontophorus gujanensis Marbled Wood-Quail

Gruiformes

Rallidae Rails, Gallinules, and Coots

Anurolimnatus castaneiceps Chestnut-headed Crake

Aramides cajanea Gray-necked Wood-Rail

Passeriformes

Cardinalidae Saltators, Grosbeaks and Cardinals

Cyanocompsa cyanoides Blue-black Grosbeak

Saltator grossus Slate-colored Grosbeak

Saltator maximus Buff-throated Saltator

Dendrocolaptidae Woodcreepers

Dendrexetastes rufigula Cinnamon-throated Woodcreeper

Dendrocincla fuliginosa Plain Brown Woodcreeper

Glyphorynchus spirurus Wedge-billed Woodcreeper

Lepidocolaptes albolineatus Lineated Woodcreeper

Xiphorhynchus guttatus Buff-throated Woodcreeper

Xiphorhynchus ocellatus Ocellated Woodcreeper

Xiphorhynchus picus Straight-billed Woodcreeper

Emberizidae Emberizine Finches

Ammodramus aurifrons Yellow-browed Sparrow

Oryzoborus angloensis Lesser Seed-Finch

Fringillidae Cardueline Finches

Carduelis psaltria Lesser Goldfinch

Furnariidae Ovenbirds

Ancistrops strigilatus Chestnut-winged Hookbill

Automolus rubiginosus Ruddy Foliage-gleaner

Philydor pyrrhodes Cinammon-rumped Foliage-gleaner

Sclerurus caudacutus Black-tailed Leaftosser

Icteridae American Orioles and Blackbirds

Cacicus cela Yellow-rumped Cacique

Cacicus solitarius Solitary Cacique

Clypicterus oseryi Casqued Oropendola

Gymnomystax mexicanus** Oriole Blackbird**

Icterus chrysocephalus Moriche Oriole

Icterus croconotus Orange-backed Troupial

Molothrus oryzivorous Giant Cowbird

Psarocolius angustifrons Russet-backed Oropendola

Psarocolius decumanas Crested Oropendola

Psarocolius viridis Green Oropendola

Thamnophilidae Typical Antbirds

Cercomacra cinerascens Gray Antbird

Chamaeza nobilis Striated Antthrush

Dichrozona cincta Banded Antbird

Formicarius analis Black-faced Antthrush

Frederickena unduligera Undulated Antshrike

Hersilochmus dugandi Dugand's Antwren

Hylophlax naevia Spot-backed Antbird

Hylophylax poecilinota Scale-backed Antbird

Hypocnemis cantator Warbling Antbird

Hypocnemis hypoxantha Yellow-browed Antbird

Megastictus margaritatus Pearly Antshrike

Myrmeciza hyperythra Plumbeous Antbird

Myrmeciza immaculata Sooty Antbird

Myrmeciza melanoceps White-shouldered Antbird

Myrmornis torquata Wing-banded Antbird

Myrmothera campanisona Thrush-like Antpitta

Myrmotherula axillaris White-flanked Antwren

Myrmotherula hauxwelli Plain-throated Antwren

Myrmotherula longipennis Long-winged Antwren

Myrmotherula obscura Short-billed Antwren

Myrmotherula ornata Ornate Antwren

Phlegopsis erythroptera Reddish-winged Bare-eye

Phlegopsis nigromaculata Black-spotted Bare-eye

Pithys albifrons White Plumbed Antbird

Schistocichla leucostigma Spot-winged Antbird

Thamnomanes ardesiacus Dusky-throated Antshrike

Thamnophilus murinus Mouse-colored Antshrike

Thamnophilus schistaceus Plain-winged Antshrike

Thraupidae Tanagers

Chlorophanes spiza Green Honeycreeper

56

Cissopis leveriana Magpie Tanager

Creugops verticalis Rufous-crested Tanager

Cyanerpes caeruleus Purple Honeycreeper

Dacnis flaviventer Yellow-bellied Dacnis

Euphonia chrysopasta White-lored Euphonia

Euphonia laniirostris Thick-billed Euphonia

Euphonia rufiventris Rufous-bellied Euphonia

Euponia xanthogaster Orange-bellied Euphonia

Habia rubica Red-crowned Ant-Tanager

Hemithraupis flavicollis Yellow-backed Tanager

Piranaga olivacea Scarlet Tanager

Piranaga rubra Summer Tanager

Ramphocelus carbo Silver-beaked Tanager

Ramphocelus nigrogularis Masked Crimson Tanager

Tachyphonus cristatus Flame-crested Tanager

Tachyphonus surinamus Fulvous-crested Tanager

Tangara callophrys Opal-crowned Tanager

Tangara chilensis Paradise Tanager

Tangara mexicana Turquoise Tanager

Tangara schrankii Green-and-gold Tanager

Tangara xanthogastra Yellow-bellied Tanager

Tersina viridis Swallow Tanager

Thraupis episcopus Blue-gray Tanager

Thraupis palmarum Palm Tanager

Piciformes

Galibulidae Jacamars

Galbula albirostris** Yellow-billed Jacamar**

Jacamerops aureus Great Jacamar

Trochilidae Hummingbirds

Amazilia fimbriata Glittering-throated Emerald

Amazilia franciae cyanocollis Andean Emerald Hummingbird

Anthracothorax nigricollis Black-throated Mango

Campylopterus largipennis Gray-breasted Sabrewing

Campylopterus villaviscensio Napo Sabrewing

Eriocnemis vestitus Glowing Puffleg

Eutoxeres condamini Buff-tailed Sicklebill

Glaucis hirsuta Rufous -breasted Hermit

Heliodoxa aurescens Gould's Jewelfront

Heliothryx aurita Black-eared Fairy

Phaethornis bourcieri Straight-billed Hermit

Phaethornis hispidus White-bearded Hermit

Phaethornis malaris Great-billed Hermit

Thalurania furcata Fork-tailed Woodnymph

Psittaciformes

Psittacidae Parrots and Macaws

Amazona farinosa Mealy Amazon

Amazona ochrocephala Yellow-crowned Amazon

Ara severa Chestnut-fronted Macaw

Aratinga leucophthalmus White-eyed Parakeet

Aratinga weddellii Dusky-headed Parakeet

Pionites melanocephala Black-headed Parrot

Pionopsitta barrabandi Orange-cheeked Parrot

Pionus chalcopterus Bronze-winged Parrot

Pionus menstruus Blue-headed Parrot

Pyrrhura melanura Maroon-tailed Parakeet

Strigiformes

Strigidae Typical Owls

Glaucidium brasilianum Ferruginous Pygmy-Owl

Lophostrix cristata Crested owl

Otus choliba Tropical Screech-Owl

Otus watsonii Tawny-bellied Screech-owl

Pulsatrix perspicillata Spectacled owl

Tinamiformes

Tinamidae Tinamous

Crypturellus bartletti Bartlett's Tinamou

Crypturellus cinereus Cinereous Tinamou

Crypturellus soui Little Tinamou

Crypturellus undulatus Undulated Tinamou

Crypturellus variegatus Variegated Tinamou

Tinamus major Great Tinamou

Trogoniformes

Trogonidae Trogons and Quetzals

Pharomachrus pavoninus Pavonine Quetzal

Trogon collaris Collared Trogon

Trogon curucui Blue-crowned Trogon

Trogon melanurus Black-tailed Trogon

Trogon rufus Black-throated Trogon

Trogon violaceus Amazonian Violaceous Trogon

Trogon viridis Amazonian White-tailed Trogon

CLASS MAMMALIA

Carnivora

Artidactyla Peccaries and Deer

Mazama americana Red brocket deer

Tayassu tajacu Collared peccary

Felidae Cat

Herpailurus yaguarundi Jaguarundi

Leopardus pardalis Ocelot

Puma concolor Puma

Mustelidae Weasel

Eira barbara Tayra

Lontra longicaudis Neotropical otter

57

Procyonidae Raccoon

Nasua nasua South american coati

Potos flavus Kinkajou

Chiroptera

Carollinae Short-tailed Fruit bats

Carollia brevicauda

Carollia castanea

Carollia perspicullatus Short-tailed fruit bat

Rhinophylla pumilio Little fruit bat

Desmodontinae Vampire bats

Desmodus rotundus Common vampire bat

Emballonuridae Sac-winged/Sheath-tailed Bats

Saccopteryx bilineata White-lined bat

Glossophaginae Long tongued bats

Glossophaga soricina Long tongued bat

Lonchophylla robusta Spear-nosed long-tongued bat

Phyllostominae Spear-nosed Bats

Macrophyllum macrophyllum Long-legged bat

Mimon crenulatum Hairy-nosed bat

Phyllostomus hastatus Spear-nosed bat

Stenodermatidae Neotropical Fruit bats

Artibeus jamaicensis Large fruit-eating bat

Artibeus lituratus Large fruit bat

Artibeus obscurus Large fruit bat

Artibeus planirostus Large fruit bat

Chiroderma villosum Big-eyed bat

Sturnria oporaphilum Yellow shouldered fruit bat

Sturrnia lilium Hairy-legged bat

Uroderma pilobatum Tent-making bat

Vampyrodes caraccioli Great Stripe-faced bat

Vespertilionidae Vespertilionid Bats

Myotis nigricans Little brown bat

Marsupialia

Didelphidae Opossums

Caluromys lanatus Western woolly opposum

Chironectes minimus Water opossum

Didelphis marsupialis Common opossum

Marmosa lepida Little rufous mouse opossum

Micoureus demerarae Long-furred woolly mouse opossum

Philander sp. Four-eyed opossum

Megalonychidae

Subfamily Choloepinae Two-toed sloths

Choloepus diadactylus Southern two-toed sloth

Primates

Callitrichidae

Saguinus nigricollis Black-mantle tamarin

Cebidae

Allouatta seniculus Red howler monkey

Aotus sp. Night monkey

Cebus albifrons White-fronted capuchin

Rodentia

Echimyidae

Dactylomys dactylinus Amazon bamboo rat

Nectomys squamipes Water rat

Proechimys semispinosus Spiny rat

Large Cavylike Rodents

Agouti paca Paca

Coendou bicolor Bi-color spined porcupine

Dasyprocta fuliginosa Black agouti

Hydrochaeirs hydrochaeirs Capybara

Myoprocta pratti Green acouchy

Sciuridae Squirrels

Sciurus sp. Amazon red squirrel

Sciurillus pusillus Neotropical pygmy squirrel

Xenarthra

Dasypodidae Armadillos

Cabassous unicinctus Southern naked-tailed armadillo

Dasypus novemcinctus Nine-banded armadillo

CLASS SAUROPSIDA

Crocodilians

Alligatoridae

Paleosuchus trigonatus Smooth-fronted caiman

Iguanas

Hoplocercidae

Enyalioides laticeps Amazon forest dragon

Polychrotidae

Anolis fuscoauratus Slender anole

Anolis nitens scypheus Yellow-tongued forest anole

Anolis ortonii Amazon bark anole

Anolis punctata Amazon green anole

Anolis trachyderma Common forest anole

58

Scincidae

Mabuya nigropunctata Black-spotted skink

Tropiduridae

Tropidurus (Plica) plica Collared tree runner

Tropidurus (Plica) umbra ochrocollaris Olive tree runner

Teiidae

Kentropyx pelviceps Forest whiptail

Tupinambis teguixin Golden tegu

Lizards

Gekkonidae

Gonatodes concinnatus Collared forest gecko

Gonatodes humeralis Bridled forest gecko

Pseudogonatodes guianensis Amazon pygmy gecko

Gymnophthalmidae

Alopoglossus striventris Black-bellied forest lizard

Arthrosaura reticulata reticulata Reticulated creek lizard

Cercosaura argulus

Cercosaura ocellata

Leposoma parietale Common forest lizard

Neusticurus ecpleopus Common streamside lizard

Prionodactylus argulus Elegant-eyed lizard

Prionodactylus oshaughnessyi White-striped eyed lizard

Snakes

Boidae

Boa constrictor constrictor Red-tailed boa

Boa constrictor imperator Common boa constrictor

Corallus enydris enydris Amazon tree boa

Epicrates cenchria gaigei Peruvian rainbow boa

Colubridae

Atractus elaps Earth snake sp3

Atractus major Earth snake

Atractus occiptoalbus Earth snake sp2

Chironius fuscus Olive whipsnake

Chironius scurruls Rusty whipsnake

Clelia clelia clelia Musarana

Dendriphidion dendrophis Tawny forest racer

Dipsas catesbyi Ornate snail-eating snake

Dipsas indica Big-headed snail-eating snake

Drepanoides anomalus Amazon egg-eating snake

Drymoluber dichrous Common glossy racer

Helicops angulatus Banded south american water snake

Helicops leopardinus Spotted water snake

Imantodes cenchoa Common blunt-headed tree snake

Imantodes lentiferus Amazon blunt-headed tree snake

Leptodeira annulata annulata Common cat-eyed snake

Leptophis cupreus Brown parrot snake

Liophis miliaris chrysostomus White-lipped swamp snake

Liophis reginae Common swamp snake

Oxyrhopus formosus Yellow-headed calico snake

Oxyrhopus melanogenys Black-headed calico snake

Oxyrhopus petola digitalus Banded calico snake

Pseustes poecilonotus polylepis Common bird snake

Pseustes sulphureus Giant bird snake

Sphlophus compressus Red-vine snake

Spilotes pullatus Tiger rat snake

Tantilla melanocephala melanocephala Black-headed snake

Xenedon rabdocephalus Common false viper

Xenedon severos Giant false viper

Xenoxybelis argenteus Green-striped vine snake

Elapidae

Micrurus langsdorfii Langsdorffs coral snake

Micrurus lemniscatus Eastern ribbon coral snake

Micrurus spixii spixxi Central amazon coral snake

Micurus hemprichii ortonii Orange-ringed coral snake

Micurus surinamensis surinamensis Aquatic coral snake

Viperidae

Bothriopsis bilineata bilineata** Western Striped Forest Pit Viper**

Bothriopsis taeniata Speckeled forest pit viper

Bothrops atrox Fer-de-lance

Bothrops hyoprora** Amazonian Hog-Nosed Lancehead**

Lachesis muta muta Amazon Bushmaster

CLASS AMPHIBIA

Bufonidae Toads

Rhinella marina Cane Toad

Rhinella complex margaritifer Crested Forest Toad

Rhinella dapsilis Sharp-nosed Toad

Centrolenidae Glass Frogs

Centrolene sp. undescribed Glass Frog

Cochranella anetarsia Glass Frog

Cochranella midas Glass Frog

Cochranella resplendens Glass Frog

Dendrophryniscus Leaf Toads

Dendrophryniscus minutus Orange bellied leaf toad

Dendrobatidae Poison Frogs

Ameerega bilinguis

Ameerega ingeri Ruby Poison Frog

Ameerega insperatus

59

Ameerega parvulus

Ameerega zaparo Sanguine Poison Frog

Colostethus bocagei

Colostethus marchesianus Ucayali Rocket Frog

Dendrobates duellmani Duellmans Poison Frog

Hylidae Tree Frogs

Cruziohyla craspedopus Amazon Leaf Frog

Dendropsophus bifurcus Upper Amazon Tree Frog

Dendropsophus marmorata Neotropical Marbled Tree Frog

Dendropsophus rhodopeplus Red Striped Tree Frog

Dendropsophus triangulium Variable Clown Tree Frog

Hemiphractus aff. scutatus Casque-headed Tree Frog

Hyla lanciformis Rocket Tree Frog

Hylomantis buckleyi

Hylomantis hulli

Hypsiboas boans Gladiator Tree Frog

Hypsiboas calcarata Convict Tree Frog

Hypsiboas geographica Map Tree Frog

Hypsiboas punctatus Common Polkadot Tree Frog

Osteocephalus cabrerai complex Forest bromeliad Tree Frog

Osteocephalus cf. deridens

Osteocephalus leprieurii Common bromeliad Tree Frog

Osteocephalus planiceps Flat-headed bromeliad Tree Frog

Phyllomedusa tarsius Warty Monkey Frog

Phyllomedusa tomopterna Barred Monkey Frog

Phyllomedusa vaillanti White-lined monkey Tree Frog

Scinax garbei Fringe lipped Tree Frog

Scinax rubra Two-striped Tree Frog

cf. Sphaenorhychus carneus Pygmy hatchet-faced Tree Frog

Trachycephalus resinifictrix Amazonian Milk Tree Frog

Trachycephalus venulosus Common milk Tree Frog

Leptodactylidae Rain Frogs

Edalorhina perezi Eyelashed Forest Frog

Engystomops petersi Painted Forest Toadlet

Hypnodactylus nigrovittatus Black-banded Robber Frog

Leptodactylus andreae Cocha Chirping Frog

Leptodactylus knudseni Rose-sided Jungle Frog

Leptodactylus mystaceus

Leptodactylus rhodomystax Moustached Jungle Frog

Leptodactylus wagneri Wagneris Jungle Frog

Lithodytes lineatus Painted Antnest Frog

Oreobates quixensis Common big headed Rain Frog

Prystimantis acuminatus Green Rain Frog

Prystimantis aff peruvianus Peruvian Rain Frog

Prystimantis altamazonicus Amazonian Rain Frog

Prystimantis conspicillatus Chirping Robber Frog

Prystimantis lanthanites Striped-throated Rain Frog

Prystimantis malkini Malkini's Rain Frog

Prystimantis martiae Marti's rainfrog

Prystimantis ockendeni complex Carabaya Rain Frog

Prystimantis sulcatus Broad-headed Rain Frog

Prystimantis variabilis Variable Rain Frog

Strabomantis sulcatus Broad-headed Rain Frog

Vanzolinius discodactylus Dark-blotched Whistling Frog

Microhylidae Sheep Frogs

Chiasmocleis bassleri Bassler's Sheep Frog

Plethodontidae Lungless Salamanders

Bolitoglossa peruviana Dwarf climbing salamander

Ranidae True Frogs

Rana palmipes Neotropical Green Frog

Typhlonectidae Caecilians

Caecilia aff. tentaculata

CLASS ARACHNIDA

Araneae

Ancylometes terrenus Giant Fishing Spider

Nephila clavipes Golden Silk Spider

CLASS INSECTA

Coleoptera

Grylloptera

Panacanthus cuspidatus Spiny Devil Katydid

Hemiptera

Dysodius lunatus Lunate Flatbug

Scarabaeidae

Canthon luteicollis**

Deltochilum howdeni**

Dichotomius ohausi**

Dichotomius prietoi**

Eurysternus caribaeus**

Eurysternus confuses**

Eurysternus foedus**

Eurysternus inflexus**

Eurysternus plebejus**

Various spp.

Canthon luteicollis

Dichotomius ohausi

Dichotomius prietoi

Euchroma gigantea Giant Ceiba Borer

Eurysternus carabaeus

Eurysternus coafusus

Eurysternus foedus

Eurysternus inflexus

Eurysternus pleibeus

Homoeotelus d'orbignyi Pleasing Fungus Beetle

Onthopogus haematopus

60

Lepidoptera

Lycaenidae

Celmia celmus

Janthecla sista

Thecla aetolius

Thecla mavors

Colobura annulata

Colobura dirce

Noctuidae

Thysania agrippina

Nymphalidae

Apaturinae

Doxocopa agathina

Doxocopa griseldis

Doxocopa laurentia

Doxocopa linda

Biblidinae

Biblis hyperia

Callicore cynosura

Catonephele acontius

Catonephele esite

Catonephele numilia

Diaethria clymena

Dynamine aerata

Dynamine arthemisia

Dynamine athemon

Dynamine gisella

Ectima thecla lerina

Eunica alpais

Eunica amelio

Eunica clytia

Eunica volumna

Hamadryas albicornus

Hamadryas arinome

Hamadryas chloe

Hamadryas feronia

Hamadryas laodamia

Nessaea batesii

Nessaea hewitsoni

Nica flavilla

Panacea prola

Panacea regina

Paulogramma peristera

Phrrhogyra amphiro

Pyrrhogyra crameri

Pyrrhogyra cuparina

Pyrrhogyra cf nasica

Pyrrhogyra otolais

Temenis laothoe

Charaxinae

Agrias claudina

Archaeoprepona amphimachus

Archaeoprepona demophon

Archaeoprepona demophon muson

Archaeoprepona licomedes

Consul fabius

Hypna clytemnestra

Memphis arachne

Memphis oenomaus

Memphis offa**

Memphis philomena

Prepona eugenes

Prepona dexamenus

Prepona laertes

Prepona pheridamas

Zaretis isidora

Zaretis itys

Cyrestinae

Marpesia berania

Marpesia crethon

Marpesia petreus

Danainae

Appias drusilla

Danaus plexippus

Dismorphia pinthous

Eurema cf xanthochlora

Perrhybris lorena

Phoebis rurina

Danainae Ithomiini

Aeria eurimidea

Ceratinia tutia

Hypoleria sarepta

Hyposcada anchiala

Hyposcada illinissa

Hypothyris anastasia

Hypothyris fluonia

Ithomia amarilla

Ithomia salapia

Mechanitis lysimnia

Mechanitis mazaeus

Mechanitis messenoides

Methona confusa psamathe

Methone Cecilia

Oleria Gunilla

Oleria ilerdina

Oleria tigilla

Tithorea harmonia

Heliconinae

Actinote sp.

Dryas iulia

Eueides Eunice

Eueides Isabella

Eueides lampeto

Eueides lybia

Heliconius erato

Heliconius hecale

Heliconius melponmene

Heliconius numata

Heliconius sara

Heliconius xanthocles

Heliconius doris

Philaethria dido

Limenitidinae

Adelpha amazona

Adelpha cocala

Adelpha cytherea

Adelpha erotia

Adelpha iphicleola

Adelpha iphiclus

Adelpha lerna

Adelpha melona

Adelpha mesentina

Adelpha messana

Adelpha naxia

Adelpha panaema

Adelpha phrolseola

Adelpha thoasa

Adelpha viola

Adelpha ximena

Nymphalinae

Anartia amathae

Anartia jatrophae

Baeotus deucalion

Eresia eunice

Eresia pelonia

Historis odius

Historis acheronta

Metamorpha elisa

Metamorpha sulpitia

Phyciodes plagiata

Siproeta stelenes

Smyrna blomfildia

Tigridia acesta

Satyrinae Brassolini

Bia actorion

Caligo eurilochus

Caligo idomeneus idomeneides

Caligo illioneus

Caligo teucer

Caligo placidiamus

Catoblepia berecynthia

Catoblepia cassiope**

Catoblepia generosa

Catoblepia sorannus

Catoblepia xanthus

Opsiphanes invirae

Eriphanes automedon**

Satyrinae Haeterini

Cithaerias aurora

Cithaerias menander

Cithaerias pireta

Haetera macleannania

Haetera piera

Pierella astyoche

Pierella hortona

Pierella lamia

Pierella lena

Pierella lucia

Satyrinae Morphini

Antirrhea hela

Antirrhea philoctetes avernus**

Morpho achilles

Morpho deidamia

Morpho helenor

Morpho menelaus

Morpho peleides

Morpho polycarmes

Satyrinae Euptychini

Caeruleuptychia scopulata

Chloreuptychia agatha

Chloreuptychia herseis

Euptychia binoculata

Euptychia labe

Euptychia myncea

Euptychia renata

Hermeuptychia hermes

Magneuptychia analis

Magneuptychia libye

Magneuptychia ocnus

Magneuptychia ocypete

61

Magneuptychia tiessa

Pareuptychia hesionides

Pareuptychia ocirrhoe

Taygetis cleopatra

Taygetis echo

Taygetis mermeria

Taygetis sosis

Papilionidae

Battus belus varus

Battus polydamas

Papilio androgeus

Papilio thoas cyniras

Parides aeneas bolivar

Parides lysander

Parides pizarro

Parides sesostris

Riodinidae

Amarynthis meneria

Ancyluris aulestes

Ancyluris endaemon

Ancyluris etias

Anteros renaldus

Calospila cilissa

Calospila emylius

Calospila partholon

Calydna venusta

Cartea vitula

Emesis fatinella

Emesis lucinda

Emesis mandana**

Emesis ocypore

Eurybia dardus

Eurybia elvina

Eurybia franciscana

Eurybia halimede

Eurybia unxia

Hyphilaria parthenis

Isapis agyrtus

Ithomiola floralis

Lasaia agesilaus narses

Lasaia pseudomeris

Leucochimona vestalis

Livendula amaris

Livendula violacea

Lyropteryx appolonia

Mesophthalma idotea

Mesosemia latizonata

Mesosemia loruhama

Napaea heteroea

Nymphidium balbinus

Nymphidium caricae

Nymphidium chione

Nymphidium lysimon

Nymphidium mantus

Nyphidium nr minuta

Pandemos pasiphae

Perophtalma lasus

Pirascca tyriotes

Rhetus arcius

Rhetus periander

Sarota chrysus

Sarota spicata

Setabis gelasine

Stalachtis calliope

Stalachtis phaedusa

Synargis orestessa

Uranidae

Urania leilus

Documents

Amazon Phase Report 094 October-December 2009