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: ecuador@gviworld.com
Web page: http://www.gvi.co.uk and http://www.gviusa.com
Executive Summary
This report documents the work of Global Vision International’s (GVI) Rainforest Conservation
and Community Development Expedition in Ecuador’s Amazon region and run in partnership
with the Yachana Foundation, based at the Yachana Reserve in the province of Napo. During
the 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).
3
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
4
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
5
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
GVI Amazon
Rio Napo, Napo Province
Fig. 1.1
6
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.
7
GVI also works with local research institutions. The Museo Ecuatoriano de Ciencias Naturales,
MECN, (Ecuadorian Museum for Natural Sciences) provides technical assistance with field
research and project development. The museum is a government research institution which
houses information and conducts research on the presence and distribution of floral and faunal
species throughout Ecuador. GVI obtains their investigation permit with the support of MECN for
the collection of specimens. The data and specimens collected by GVI are being lodged with the
MECN in order to make this information nationally and internationally available, and to provide
verification of the field data. MECN technicians are continuously invited to the Yachana Reserve
to conduct in-field training and education for GVI and Yachana students, as well as explore
research opportunities otherwise unavailable.
A major goal for GVI’s research is to shift focus from identifying species in the reserve to
collecting data for management concerns and publication. In collaboration with all local and
international partners, GVI focuses its research on answering ecological questions related to
conservation. With this in mind, several key goals have been identified:
• Cataloguing species diversity in the Yachana Reserve in relation to regional diversity.

• Conducting long-term biological and conservation based research projects.
• Monitoring of biological integrity within the Yachana Reserve and the immediate
surrounding area.
• Publication of research findings in primary scientific literature.
• Solicitation of visiting researchers and academic collaborators.
• Identification of regional or bio-geographic endemic species or sub-species.
• Identification of species that are included within IUCN or Convention on International
Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) appendices.
• Identification of keystone species important for ecosystem function.
• Identification of new species, sub-species, and range extensions.
• Identification of charismatic species that could add value in promoting the Yachana
Reserve to visitors.
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
8
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.
9
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).
10
Birds-Sighted/hour by Family
Phase All Total
Family 094 Phases 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.
11
Phase Phase Phase All
Family 092 093 094 Phases
Icteridae 3.5 0.7 2.5 2.3
Psittacidae 1.5 1.4 0.5 1.2
Hirundinidae 0.5 1.3 0.1 0.7
Apodidae 1.1 0.4 0.3 0.6
Ramphastidae 0.9 0.5 0.5 0.6
Tyrannidae 0.7 0.1 0.7 0.5
Thraupidae 0.3 0.7 0.6 0.5
Table 2.1.2: The seven most-sighted

sighted families (birds/hour) divided by phase. Phases 092, 093,
and 094 represent 60, 50, 35 person hours of searching, respectively.
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.
12
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
13
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.
14
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.
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
15
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
Cascada Ficus Laguna Frontier Total
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
16
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
50
45
40
35
30
Percentages (%) per site
25 Cascada
20 Percentages (%) per site
15 Frontier
10 Percentages (%) per site

Laguna
5
Percentages (%) per site
0
Ficus
Barbets
Puffbirds
Motmots
Tanagers
Manakins
Antbirds
Grosbeaks
Woodcreepers
Jacamars
Woodpeckers
Tyrant Flycatchers
Falcons
Foliage Gleaners
Hummingbirds
Thrushes
Wrens
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%.
17
Fig. 2.2.3 Percentage composition of Manakins, Antbirds and Hummingbirds at each site
50
45
40
35
30
Manakins Pipridae
25
Antbirds Thamnophilidae
20 Hummingbirds Trochilidae
15
10
0
Cascada Frontier Laguna Ficus
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
18
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.
19
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%.
20
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
Morn Mid- Afterno Morni Mid- Afterno Morni Mid- Afterno Average
ing day on ng day on ng day on
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).
21
22
Figures 2.3.7 - 2.3.12 - Calling patterns for bird #2 by both observers for each day
23
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
24
showed little agreement when considering calls per minute, now show agreements of greater
than 90%.
Table 2.3.2
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
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
Time of Number
Day Session occurrence Weather of Outcomes taken
(mins) observers
1 2 19, 24 Wind 1
1 3 37-42 Thunder all
1 3 50 strong winds all
Abandoned - 63
1 3 53 heavy rain all mins
2 2 80,88 heavy wind all
strong winds,
2 3 22, 38 thunder all
Abandoned - 67
2 3 59 heavy rain all 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.
25
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.
26
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
27
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).
28
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.
29
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.
30
Pitfalls in Expedition 094
Table 4.4.1: Number of individuals found in pitfalls in 094
Amphibians and
Amphibians Reptiles
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
Amphibians Reptiles
reptiles
Total primary
(approx 1350 mins survey 205 192 13
time with 5/6 searchers)
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
Amphibians Reptiles
reptiles
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
Amphibians Reptiles
reptiles
Total
(approx 2970 mins survey 657 610 47
time with 5/6 searchers)
31
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
32
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.
33
Statistical Analysis
Single factor ANOVAs were used to evaluate differences in tribe abundances between sampling
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
used for PCA.
5.3 Results
To date, three butterfly sampling periods have been completed,, resulting in 1680 trap days (40
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). Nessaea
hewitisoni and Archaeoprepona demophon made up 10.2% of all butterflies captured,
respectively.
In this phase alone, four species new to the reserve’s species list were trapped and identified:
Catoblepia cassiope (Satyrinae - Brassolini), Enphanis automedon (Satyrinae - Brassolini),
Eriphanes mandana (Riodinidae) and Memphis offa (Charaxinae – Anaeini).
Anaeini) Additionally, 4
species captured in the last phase have been identified Chloreuptychia Agatha, Euptychia
myncea, Magneuptychia analis, Pareuptychia hesionides.
Figure 5.3.1:
1: Distribution of butterflies captured in 093 and 094, grouped by tribe and subtribe
34
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
35
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.
36
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.
37
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
38
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
39
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
40
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
Secondary
Primary Undisturbed Individuals 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
41
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
42
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.
43
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.
44
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.
45
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.
46
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.
47
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.
48
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.
49
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.
50
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.
51
10 Appendix A - GVI Species List
January 2010
** New additions to the Yachana Species List in phase 094
Class Aves CLASS AMPHIBIA

Apodiformes
Caprimulgiformes
Charadriiformes CLASS ARACHNIDA
Ciconiformes
Columbiformes
Coraciiformes CLASS INSECTA
Cuculiformes Coleoptera
Falconiformes
Lepidoptera
Galliformes
Lycaenidae
Gruiformes
Noctuidae
Passeriformes
Nymphalidae
Piciformes
Papilionidae
Psittaciformes
Riodinidae
Strigiformes
Uranidae
Tinamiformes
Trogoniformes
Class Mammalia
Carnivora
Chiroptera
Marsupialia
Megalonychidae
Primates
Rodentia
Xenarthra
CLASS SAUROPSIDA
Crocodilians
Iguanas
Lizards
Snakes
52
CLASS AVES Coraciiformes
Alcedinidae Kingfishers
Apodiformes
Chloroceryle amazona Amazon Kingfisher
Apodidae Swifts
Chloroceryle americana Green Kingfisher
Chaetura cinereiventris Grey-rumped Swift
Chloroceryle inda Green and Rufous Kingfisher
Streptoprocne zonaris White-collared Swift
Megaceryle torquata Ringed Kingfisher
Caprimulgiformes
Bucconidae Puffbirds
Caprimulgidae Nightjars and Nighthawks
Chelidoptera tenebrosa Swallow-winged Puffbird
Nyctidromus albicollis Pauraque
Bucco macrodactylus Chestnut-capped Puffbird
Nyctiphrynus ocellatus Ocellated Poorwill
Malacoptila fusca White-chested Puffbird
Monasa flavirostris Yellow-billed Nunbird
Nyctibiidae Potoos
Monasa morphoeus White-fronted Nunbird
Nyctibius aethereus Long-tailed Potoo
Monasa nigrifrons Black-fronted Nunbird
Nyctibius grandis Great Potoo
Notharchus macrorynchos White-necked Puffbird
Nyctibius griseus Common Potoo
Capitonidae New World Barbets

Charadriiformes Capita aurovirens Scarlet-crowned Barbet
Recurvirostridae Plovers and Lapwings Capita auratus Gilded Barbet
Hoploxypterus cayanus Pied Plover Eubucco bourcierii Lemon-throated Barbet
Terenotriccus erythrurus Ruddy-tailed Flycatcher
Tityra cayana Black-tailed Tityra Corvidae Crows, Jays, and Magpies
Cyanocorax violaceus Violaceous Jay
Scolopacidae Sandpipers, Snipes and Phalaropes

Cotingidae Cotinga
Actitis macularia Spotted Sandpiper
Ampelioides tschudii Scaled Fruiteater
Tringa solitaria Solitary Sandpiper
Cotinga cayana Spangled Cotinga
Cotinga maynana Plum-throated Cotinga
Ciconiformes
Gynnoderus foetidus Bare-necked Fruitcrow
Ardeidae Herons, Bitterns, and Egrets
Iodopleura isabellae White-browed Purpletuft
Ardea cocoi Cocoi Heron
Querula purpurata Purple throated Fruitcrow
Bubulcus ibis Cattle Egret
Butorides striatus Striated Heron
Hirundinidae Swallows and Martins
Egretta caerulea Little Blue Heron
Atticora fasciata White-banded Swallow
Egretta thula Snowy Egret
Stelgidopteryx ruficollis Southern rough-winged swallow
Tigrisoma lineatum Rufescent Tiger-Heron
Tachycineta albiventer White-winged Swallow
Cathartidae American Vultures

Momotidae Motmots
Cathartes aura Turkey Vulture
Baryphthengus martii Rufous Motmot
Cathartes melambrotus Greater Yellow-headed Vulture
Electron platyrhynchum Broad-billed Motmot
Coragyps atractus Black Vulture
Momotus momota Blue-crowned Motmot
Sarcoramphus papa King Vulture
Parulidae New World Warblers

Columbiformes Basileuterus fulvicauda Buff-rumped Warbler
Columbidae Pigeons and Doves Dendroica aestiva** Yellow Warbler**
Claravis pretiosa Blue Ground-Dove Dendroica fusca Blackburnian Warbler
Columba plumbea Plumbeous Pigeon Dendroica striata Blackpoll Warbler
Geotrygon Montana Ruddy Quail-Dove
Leptotila rufaxilla Gray-fronted Dove
Picidae Woodpeckers and Piculets
53
Campephilus melanoleucos Crimson-crested Woodpecker
Campephilus rubricollis Red-necked Woodpecker Hemitriccus zosterops White-eyed Tody-tyrant
Celeus elegans Chestnut Woodpecker Legatus leucophaius Piratic Flycatcher
Celeus flavus Cream-coloured Woodpecker Leptopogon amaurocephalus Sepia-capped Flycatcher
Celeus grammicus Scale-breasted Woodpecker Lipaugus vociferans Screaming Piha
Chrysoptilus punctigula Spot-breasted Woodpecker Megarynchus piangu Boat-billed Flycatcher
Dryocopus lineatus Lineated Woodpecker Mionectes oleagineus Ochre-bellied Flycatcher
Melanerpes cruentatus Yellow-tufted Woodpecker Myiarchus ferox Short-crested Flycatcher
Picumnus lafresnayi Lafresnaye's piculet Myiarchus tuberculifer Dusky-capped Flycatcher
Veniliornis fumigatus Smoky-brown Woodpecker Myiobius barbatus Whiskered Flycatcher
Veniliornis passerinus Little Woodpecker Myiodynastes luteiventris Sulphur-bellied Flycatcher
Myiodynastes maculatus Streaked Flycatcher
Pipridae Manakins Myiozetetes granadensis Gray-capped Flycatcher
Chiroxiphia pareola Blue-backed Manakin Myiozetetes luteiventris Dusky-chested Flycatcher
Chloropipo holochlora Green Manakin Myiozetetes similis Social Flycatcher
Dixiphia pipra White-crowned Manakin Ochthornis littoralis Drab Water-Tyrant
Lepidothrix coronata Blue-crowned Manakin Pachyramphus marginatus Black-capped Becard
Machaeropterus regulus Striped Manakin Pitangus sulphuratus Great Kiskadee
Manacus manacus White-bearded Manakin Rhynchocyclus olivaceus Olivaceous Flatbill
Pipra erythrocephala Golden-headed Manakin Rhytipterna simplex Grayish Mouner
Tyranneutes stolzmanni Dwarf Tyrant Manakin Tityra inquisitor Black-crowned Tityra
Tityra semifasciata Masked Tityra
Polioptilidae Gnatcatchers and Gnatwrens Todirostrum chrysocrotaphum Yellow-browed Tody-Flycatcher
Microbates cinereiventris Tawny-faced Gnatwren Tolmomyias poliocephalus Gray-crowned Flatbill
Tolmomyias viridiceps Olive-faced Flatbill
Ramphastidae Toucans Tyrannulus elatus Yellow-crowned Tyrannulet
Pteroglossus azara Ivory-billed Aracari Tyrannus melancholicus Tropical Kingbird
Pteroglossus castanotis Chestnut-eared Aracari Tyrannus savana Fork-tailed Flycatcher
Pteroglossus inscriptus Lettered Aracari Tyrannus tyrannus Eastern Kingbird
Pteroglossus pluricinctus Many-banded Aracari Zimmerius gracilipes Slender-footed Tyrannulet
Ramphastos tucanus White-throated Toucan
Ramphastos vitellinus Channel-billed Toucan Vireonidae Vireos
Selenidera reinwardtii Golden-collared Toucanet Vireo olivaceus Red-eyed Vireo
Troglodytidae Wrens Cuculiformes

Campylorhynchus turdinus Thrush-like Wren Cuculidae Cuckoos and Anis
Donacobius atricapillus Black-capped Donacobius Crotophaga ani Smooth-billed Ani
Henicorhina leucosticta White-breasted Wood-wren Crotophaga major Greater Ani
Microcerculus marginatus Southern Nightingale-Wren Piaya cayana Squirrel Cockoo
Thryothorus coraya Coraya Wren Piaya melanogaster Black-bellied Cuckoo
Turdidae Thrushes Opisthocomidae Hoatzin

Catharus ustulatus Swainson's Thrush Opisthocomus hoazin Hoatzin
Turdus albicollis White-necked Thrush
Turdus lawrencii Lawrence's Thrush Falconiformes
Accipitridae Kites, Eagles, Hawks, and Osprey
Tyrannidae Tyrant Flycatchers
Buteo magnirostris Roadside Hawk
Attila spadiceus Bright-rumped Attila Buteo polyosoma Variable Hawk
Colonia colonus Long-tailed Tyrant Elanoides forficatus Swallow-tailed Kite
Conopias cinchoneti Lemon-browed Flycatcher Harpagus bidentatus Double-toothed Kite
Conopias parva Yellow-throated Flycatcher Ictinia plumbea Plumbeous Kite
Contopus virens Eastern Wood-Pewee
54
Leptodon cayanensis Gray-headed Kite
Leucopternis albicollis White Hawk Furnariidae Ovenbirds
Leucopternis melanops Black-faced Hawk Ancistrops strigilatus Chestnut-winged Hookbill
Pandion haliaetus Osprey Automolus rubiginosus Ruddy Foliage-gleaner
Philydor pyrrhodes Cinammon-rumped Foliage-gleaner
Falconidae Falcons and Caracaras Sclerurus caudacutus Black-tailed Leaftosser
Daptrius ater Black Caracara
Falco rufigularis Bat Falcon Icteridae American Orioles and Blackbirds
Herpetotheres cachinnans Laughing Falcon Cacicus cela Yellow-rumped Cacique
Ibycter americanus Red-throated Caracara Cacicus solitarius Solitary Cacique
Micrastur gilvicollis Lined Forest-Falcon Clypicterus oseryi Casqued Oropendola
Micrastur semitorquatus Collared Forest-Falcon Gymnomystax mexicanus** Oriole Blackbird**
Milvago chimachima Yellow-headed Caracara Icterus chrysocephalus Moriche Oriole
Icterus croconotus Orange-backed Troupial
Galliformes Molothrus oryzivorous Giant Cowbird
Psarocolius angustifrons Russet-backed Oropendola
Cracidae Curassows, Guans, and Chachalacas
Psarocolius decumanas Crested Oropendola
Nothocrax urumutum Nocturnal Curassow
Psarocolius viridis Green Oropendola
Ortalis guttata Speckled Chachalaca
Penelope jacquacu Spix's Guan
Thamnophilidae Typical Antbirds
Cercomacra cinerascens Gray Antbird
Odontophoridae New World Quails
Chamaeza nobilis Striated Antthrush
Odontophorus gujanensis Marbled Wood-Quail
Dichrozona cincta Banded Antbird
Formicarius analis Black-faced Antthrush
Gruiformes
Frederickena unduligera Undulated Antshrike
Rallidae Rails, Gallinules, and Coots
Hersilochmus dugandi Dugand's Antwren
Anurolimnatus castaneiceps Chestnut-headed Crake
Hylophlax naevia Spot-backed Antbird
Aramides cajanea Gray-necked Wood-Rail
Hylophylax poecilinota Scale-backed Antbird
Hypocnemis cantator Warbling Antbird
Passeriformes
Hypocnemis hypoxantha Yellow-browed Antbird
Cardinalidae Saltators, Grosbeaks and Cardinals Megastictus margaritatus Pearly Antshrike
Cyanocompsa cyanoides Blue-black Grosbeak Myrmeciza hyperythra Plumbeous Antbird
Saltator grossus Slate-colored Grosbeak Myrmeciza immaculata Sooty Antbird
Saltator maximus Buff-throated Saltator Myrmeciza melanoceps White-shouldered Antbird
Myrmornis torquata Wing-banded Antbird
Dendrocolaptidae Woodcreepers Myrmothera campanisona Thrush-like Antpitta
Dendrexetastes rufigula Cinnamon-throated Woodcreeper Myrmotherula axillaris White-flanked Antwren
Dendrocincla fuliginosa Plain Brown Woodcreeper Myrmotherula hauxwelli Plain-throated Antwren
Glyphorynchus spirurus Wedge-billed Woodcreeper Myrmotherula longipennis Long-winged Antwren
Lepidocolaptes albolineatus Lineated Woodcreeper Myrmotherula obscura Short-billed Antwren
Xiphorhynchus guttatus Buff-throated Woodcreeper Myrmotherula ornata Ornate Antwren
Xiphorhynchus ocellatus Ocellated Woodcreeper Phlegopsis erythroptera Reddish-winged Bare-eye
Xiphorhynchus picus Straight-billed Woodcreeper Phlegopsis nigromaculata Black-spotted Bare-eye
Pithys albifrons White Plumbed Antbird
Emberizidae Emberizine Finches Schistocichla leucostigma Spot-winged Antbird
Ammodramus aurifrons Yellow-browed Sparrow Thamnomanes ardesiacus Dusky-throated Antshrike
Oryzoborus angloensis Lesser Seed-Finch Thamnophilus murinus Mouse-colored Antshrike
Thamnophilus schistaceus Plain-winged Antshrike
Fringillidae Cardueline Finches
Carduelis psaltria Lesser Goldfinch Thraupidae Tanagers
Chlorophanes spiza Green Honeycreeper
55
Cissopis leveriana Magpie Tanager
Creugops verticalis Rufous-crested Tanager Aratinga leucophthalmus White-eyed Parakeet
Cyanerpes caeruleus Purple Honeycreeper Aratinga weddellii Dusky-headed Parakeet
Dacnis flaviventer Yellow-bellied Dacnis Pionites melanocephala Black-headed Parrot
Euphonia chrysopasta White-lored Euphonia Pionopsitta barrabandi Orange-cheeked Parrot
Euphonia laniirostris Thick-billed Euphonia Pionus chalcopterus Bronze-winged Parrot
Euphonia rufiventris Rufous-bellied Euphonia Pionus menstruus Blue-headed Parrot
Euponia xanthogaster Orange-bellied Euphonia Pyrrhura melanura Maroon-tailed Parakeet
Habia rubica Red-crowned Ant-Tanager
Hemithraupis flavicollis Yellow-backed Tanager Strigiformes
Piranaga olivacea Scarlet Tanager Strigidae Typical Owls
Piranaga rubra Summer Tanager Glaucidium brasilianum Ferruginous Pygmy-Owl
Ramphocelus carbo Silver-beaked Tanager Lophostrix cristata Crested owl
Ramphocelus nigrogularis Masked Crimson Tanager Otus choliba Tropical Screech-Owl
Tachyphonus cristatus Flame-crested Tanager Otus watsonii Tawny-bellied Screech-owl
Tachyphonus surinamus Fulvous-crested Tanager Pulsatrix perspicillata Spectacled owl
Tangara callophrys Opal-crowned Tanager
Tangara chilensis Paradise Tanager Tinamiformes
Tangara mexicana Turquoise Tanager Tinamidae Tinamous
Tangara schrankii Green-and-gold Tanager Crypturellus bartletti Bartlett's Tinamou
Tangara xanthogastra Yellow-bellied Tanager Crypturellus cinereus Cinereous Tinamou
Tersina viridis Swallow Tanager Crypturellus soui Little Tinamou
Thraupis episcopus Blue-gray Tanager Crypturellus undulatus Undulated Tinamou
Thraupis palmarum Palm Tanager Crypturellus variegatus Variegated Tinamou
Tinamus major Great Tinamou
Piciformes
Galibulidae Jacamars
Trogoniformes
Galbula albirostris** Yellow-billed Jacamar**
Trogonidae Trogons and Quetzals
Jacamerops aureus Great Jacamar
Pharomachrus pavoninus Pavonine Quetzal
Trogon collaris Collared Trogon
Trochilidae Hummingbirds
Trogon curucui Blue-crowned Trogon
Amazilia fimbriata Glittering-throated Emerald
Trogon melanurus Black-tailed Trogon
Amazilia franciae cyanocollis Andean Emerald Hummingbird Trogon rufus Black-throated Trogon
Anthracothorax nigricollis Black-throated Mango Trogon violaceus Amazonian Violaceous Trogon
Campylopterus largipennis Gray-breasted Sabrewing
Trogon viridis Amazonian White-tailed Trogon
Campylopterus villaviscensio Napo Sabrewing
Eriocnemis vestitus Glowing Puffleg
Eutoxeres condamini Buff-tailed Sicklebill
CLASS MAMMALIA
Glaucis hirsuta Rufous -breasted Hermit Carnivora
Heliodoxa aurescens Gould's Jewelfront Artidactyla Peccaries and Deer
Heliothryx aurita Black-eared Fairy Mazama americana Red brocket deer
Phaethornis bourcieri Straight-billed Hermit Tayassu tajacu Collared peccary
Phaethornis hispidus White-bearded Hermit
Phaethornis malaris Great-billed Hermit Felidae Cat
Thalurania furcata Fork-tailed Woodnymph Herpailurus yaguarundi Jaguarundi
Leopardus pardalis Ocelot
Psittaciformes Puma concolor Puma
Psittacidae Parrots and Macaws

Amazona farinosa Mealy Amazon Mustelidae Weasel
Amazona ochrocephala Yellow-crowned Amazon Eira barbara Tayra
Ara severa Chestnut-fronted Macaw Lontra longicaudis Neotropical otter
56
Procyonidae Raccoon Subfamily Choloepinae Two-toed sloths
Nasua nasua South american coati Choloepus diadactylus Southern two-toed sloth
Potos flavus Kinkajou
Primates
Chiroptera Callitrichidae
Carollinae Short-tailed Fruit bats Saguinus nigricollis Black-mantle tamarin
Carollia brevicauda
Carollia castanea Cebidae
Carollia perspicullatus Short-tailed fruit bat Allouatta seniculus Red howler monkey
Rhinophylla pumilio Little fruit bat Aotus sp. Night monkey
Cebus albifrons White-fronted capuchin
Desmodontinae Vampire bats
Desmodus rotundus Common vampire bat Rodentia
Echimyidae
Emballonuridae Sac-winged/Sheath-tailed Bats Dactylomys dactylinus Amazon bamboo rat
Saccopteryx bilineata White-lined bat Nectomys squamipes Water rat
Proechimys semispinosus Spiny rat
Glossophaginae Long tongued bats
Glossophaga soricina Long tongued bat
Large Cavylike Rodents
Lonchophylla robusta Spear-nosed long-tongued bat
Agouti paca Paca
Coendou bicolor Bi-color spined porcupine
Phyllostominae Spear-nosed Bats
Dasyprocta fuliginosa Black agouti
Macrophyllum macrophyllum Long-legged bat
Hydrochaeirs hydrochaeirs Capybara
Mimon crenulatum Hairy-nosed bat
Myoprocta pratti Green acouchy
Phyllostomus hastatus Spear-nosed bat
Sciuridae Squirrels
Stenodermatidae Neotropical Fruit bats Sciurus sp. Amazon red squirrel
Artibeus jamaicensis Large fruit-eating bat Sciurillus pusillus Neotropical pygmy squirrel
Artibeus lituratus Large fruit bat
Artibeus obscurus Large fruit bat Xenarthra
Artibeus planirostus Large fruit bat Dasypodidae Armadillos
Chiroderma villosum Big-eyed bat Cabassous unicinctus Southern naked-tailed armadillo
Sturnria oporaphilum Yellow shouldered fruit bat Dasypus novemcinctus Nine-banded armadillo
Sturrnia lilium Hairy-legged bat
Uroderma pilobatum Tent-making bat
Vampyrodes caraccioli Great Stripe-faced bat CLASS SAUROPSIDA
Crocodilians
Vespertilionidae Vespertilionid Bats
Alligatoridae
Myotis nigricans Little brown bat
Paleosuchus trigonatus Smooth-fronted caiman
Marsupialia
Iguanas
Didelphidae Opossums
Hoplocercidae
Caluromys lanatus Western woolly opposum
Enyalioides laticeps Amazon forest dragon
Chironectes minimus Water opossum
Didelphis marsupialis Common opossum
Polychrotidae
Marmosa lepida Little rufous mouse opossum
Anolis fuscoauratus Slender anole
Micoureus demerarae Long-furred woolly mouse opossum
Anolis nitens scypheus Yellow-tongued forest anole
Philander sp. Four-eyed opossum
Anolis ortonii Amazon bark anole
Anolis punctata Amazon green anole
Megalonychidae Anolis trachyderma Common forest anole
57
Scincidae Leptodeira annulata annulata Common cat-eyed snake
Mabuya nigropunctata Black-spotted skink Leptophis cupreus Brown parrot snake
Liophis miliaris chrysostomus White-lipped swamp snake
Tropiduridae Liophis reginae Common swamp snake
Tropidurus (Plica) plica Collared tree runner Oxyrhopus formosus Yellow-headed calico snake
Tropidurus (Plica) umbra ochrocollaris Olive tree runner Oxyrhopus melanogenys Black-headed calico snake
Oxyrhopus petola digitalus Banded calico snake
Teiidae Pseustes poecilonotus polylepis Common bird snake
Kentropyx pelviceps Forest whiptail Pseustes sulphureus Giant bird snake
Tupinambis teguixin Golden tegu Sphlophus compressus Red-vine snake
Spilotes pullatus Tiger rat snake
Lizards Tantilla melanocephala melanocephala Black-headed snake
Gekkonidae Xenedon rabdocephalus Common false viper
Gonatodes concinnatus Collared forest gecko Xenedon severos Giant false viper
Gonatodes humeralis Bridled forest gecko Xenoxybelis argenteus Green-striped vine snake
Pseudogonatodes guianensis Amazon pygmy gecko
Elapidae
Gymnophthalmidae Micrurus langsdorfii Langsdorffs coral snake
Alopoglossus striventris Black-bellied forest lizard Micrurus lemniscatus Eastern ribbon coral snake
Arthrosaura reticulata reticulata Reticulated creek lizard Micrurus spixii spixxi Central amazon coral snake
Cercosaura argulus Micurus hemprichii ortonii Orange-ringed coral snake
Cercosaura ocellata Micurus surinamensis surinamensis Aquatic coral snake
Leposoma parietale Common forest lizard
Neusticurus ecpleopus Common streamside lizard Viperidae
Prionodactylus argulus Elegant-eyed lizard Bothriopsis bilineata bilineata** Western Striped Forest Pit Viper**
Prionodactylus oshaughnessyi White-striped eyed lizard Bothriopsis taeniata Speckeled forest pit viper
Bothrops atrox Fer-de-lance
Bothrops hyoprora** Amazonian Hog-Nosed Lancehead**
Snakes
Lachesis muta muta Amazon Bushmaster
Boidae
Boa constrictor constrictor Red-tailed boa
Boa constrictor imperator Common boa constrictor CLASS AMPHIBIA
Corallus enydris enydris Amazon tree boa
Bufonidae Toads
Epicrates cenchria gaigei Peruvian rainbow boa
Rhinella marina Cane Toad
Rhinella complex margaritifer Crested Forest Toad
Colubridae
Rhinella dapsilis Sharp-nosed Toad
Atractus elaps Earth snake sp3
Atractus major Earth snake
Centrolenidae Glass Frogs
Atractus occiptoalbus Earth snake sp2
Centrolene sp. undescribed Glass Frog
Chironius fuscus Olive whipsnake
Cochranella anetarsia Glass Frog
Chironius scurruls Rusty whipsnake
Cochranella midas Glass Frog
Clelia clelia clelia Musarana
Cochranella resplendens Glass Frog
Dendriphidion dendrophis Tawny forest racer
Dipsas catesbyi Ornate snail-eating snake
Dendrophryniscus Leaf Toads
Dipsas indica Big-headed snail-eating snake
Dendrophryniscus minutus Orange bellied leaf toad
Drepanoides anomalus Amazon egg-eating snake
Drymoluber dichrous Common glossy racer
Dendrobatidae Poison Frogs
Helicops angulatus Banded south american water snake
Ameerega bilinguis
Helicops leopardinus Spotted water snake
Ameerega ingeri Ruby Poison Frog
Imantodes cenchoa Common blunt-headed tree snake
Ameerega insperatus
Imantodes lentiferus Amazon blunt-headed tree snake
58
Ameerega parvulus
Ameerega zaparo Sanguine Poison Frog Prystimantis sulcatus Broad-headed Rain Frog
Colostethus bocagei Prystimantis variabilis Variable Rain Frog
Colostethus marchesianus Ucayali Rocket Frog Strabomantis sulcatus Broad-headed Rain Frog
Dendrobates duellmani Duellmans Poison Frog Vanzolinius discodactylus Dark-blotched Whistling Frog
Hylidae Tree Frogs Microhylidae Sheep Frogs

Cruziohyla craspedopus Amazon Leaf Frog Chiasmocleis bassleri Bassler's Sheep Frog
Dendropsophus bifurcus Upper Amazon Tree Frog
Dendropsophus marmorata Neotropical Marbled Tree Frog Plethodontidae Lungless Salamanders
Dendropsophus rhodopeplus Red Striped Tree Frog Bolitoglossa peruviana Dwarf climbing salamander
Dendropsophus triangulium Variable Clown Tree Frog
Hemiphractus aff. scutatus Casque-headed Tree Frog Ranidae True Frogs
Hyla lanciformis Rocket Tree Frog Rana palmipes Neotropical Green Frog
Hylomantis buckleyi Typhlonectidae Caecilians
Hylomantis hulli Caecilia aff. tentaculata
Hypsiboas boans Gladiator Tree Frog
Hypsiboas calcarata Convict Tree Frog
CLASS ARACHNIDA
Hypsiboas geographica Map Tree Frog
Araneae
Hypsiboas punctatus Common Polkadot Tree Frog
Ancylometes terrenus Giant Fishing Spider
Osteocephalus cabrerai complex Forest bromeliad Tree Frog
Nephila clavipes Golden Silk Spider
Osteocephalus cf. deridens
Osteocephalus leprieurii Common bromeliad Tree Frog
Osteocephalus planiceps Flat-headed bromeliad Tree Frog CLASS INSECTA
Phyllomedusa tarsius Warty Monkey Frog
Coleoptera
Phyllomedusa tomopterna Barred Monkey Frog
Grylloptera
Phyllomedusa vaillanti White-lined monkey Tree Frog
Panacanthus cuspidatus Spiny Devil Katydid
Scinax garbei Fringe lipped Tree Frog
Hemiptera
Scinax rubra Two-striped Tree Frog
Dysodius lunatus Lunate Flatbug
cf. Sphaenorhychus carneus Pygmy hatchet-faced Tree Frog
Scarabaeidae
Trachycephalus resinifictrix Amazonian Milk Tree Frog
Canthon luteicollis**
Trachycephalus venulosus Common milk Tree Frog
Deltochilum howdeni**
Dichotomius ohausi**
Leptodactylidae Rain Frogs
Dichotomius prietoi**
Edalorhina perezi Eyelashed Forest Frog
Eurysternus caribaeus**
Engystomops petersi Painted Forest Toadlet
Eurysternus confuses**
Hypnodactylus nigrovittatus Black-banded Robber Frog
Eurysternus foedus**
Leptodactylus andreae Cocha Chirping Frog
Eurysternus inflexus**
Leptodactylus knudseni Rose-sided Jungle Frog
Eurysternus plebejus**
Leptodactylus mystaceus
Leptodactylus rhodomystax Moustached Jungle Frog Various spp.
Leptodactylus wagneri Wagneris Jungle Frog Canthon luteicollis
Lithodytes lineatus Painted Antnest Frog Dichotomius ohausi
Oreobates quixensis Common big headed Rain Frog Dichotomius prietoi
Prystimantis acuminatus Green Rain Frog Euchroma gigantea Giant Ceiba Borer
Prystimantis aff peruvianus Peruvian Rain Frog Eurysternus carabaeus
Prystimantis altamazonicus Amazonian Rain Frog Eurysternus coafusus
Prystimantis conspicillatus Chirping Robber Frog Eurysternus foedus
Prystimantis lanthanites Striped-throated Rain Frog Eurysternus inflexus
Prystimantis malkini Malkini's Rain Frog Eurysternus pleibeus
Prystimantis martiae Marti's rainfrog Homoeotelus d'orbignyi Pleasing Fungus Beetle
Prystimantis ockendeni complex Carabaya Rain Frog Onthopogus haematopus
59
Lepidoptera Pyrrhogyra otolais Oleria tigilla
Temenis laothoe Tithorea harmonia Satyrinae Brassolini
Lycaenidae
Bia actorion
Celmia celmus
Charaxinae Heliconinae Caligo eurilochus
Janthecla sista
Agrias claudina Actinote sp. Caligo idomeneus idomeneides
Thecla aetolius
Archaeoprepona amphimachus Dryas iulia Caligo illioneus
Thecla mavors
Archaeoprepona demophon Eueides Eunice Caligo teucer
Colobura annulata
Archaeoprepona demophon muson Eueides Isabella Caligo placidiamus
Colobura dirce
Archaeoprepona licomedes Eueides lampeto Catoblepia berecynthia
Consul fabius Eueides lybia Catoblepia cassiope**
Noctuidae
Hypna clytemnestra Heliconius erato Catoblepia generosa
Thysania agrippina
Memphis arachne Heliconius hecale Catoblepia sorannus
Memphis oenomaus Heliconius melponmene Catoblepia xanthus
Nymphalidae
Memphis offa** Heliconius numata Opsiphanes invirae
Apaturinae
Memphis philomena Heliconius sara Eriphanes automedon**
Doxocopa agathina
Prepona eugenes Heliconius xanthocles
Doxocopa griseldis
Prepona dexamenus Heliconius doris Satyrinae Haeterini
Doxocopa laurentia
Prepona laertes Philaethria dido Cithaerias aurora
Doxocopa linda
Prepona pheridamas Cithaerias menander
Zaretis isidora Limenitidinae Cithaerias pireta
Biblidinae
Zaretis itys Adelpha amazona Haetera macleannania
Biblis hyperia
Adelpha cocala Haetera piera
Callicore cynosura
Cyrestinae Adelpha cytherea Pierella astyoche
Catonephele acontius Marpesia berania Adelpha erotia Pierella hortona
Catonephele esite Marpesia crethon Adelpha iphicleola Pierella lamia
Catonephele numilia Marpesia petreus Adelpha iphiclus Pierella lena
Diaethria clymena Adelpha lerna Pierella lucia
Dynamine aerata Danainae Adelpha melona
Dynamine arthemisia Appias drusilla Adelpha mesentina Satyrinae Morphini
Dynamine athemon Danaus plexippus Adelpha messana Antirrhea hela
Dynamine gisella Dismorphia pinthous Adelpha naxia Antirrhea philoctetes avernus**
Ectima thecla lerina Eurema cf xanthochlora Adelpha panaema Morpho achilles
Eunica alpais Perrhybris lorena Adelpha phrolseola Morpho deidamia
Eunica amelio Phoebis rurina Adelpha thoasa Morpho helenor
Eunica clytia Adelpha viola Morpho menelaus
Eunica volumna Danainae Ithomiini Adelpha ximena Morpho peleides
Hamadryas albicornus Aeria eurimidea Morpho polycarmes
Hamadryas arinome Ceratinia tutia Nymphalinae
Hamadryas chloe Hypoleria sarepta Anartia amathae Satyrinae Euptychini
Hamadryas feronia Hyposcada anchiala Anartia jatrophae Caeruleuptychia scopulata
Hamadryas laodamia Hyposcada illinissa Baeotus deucalion Chloreuptychia agatha
Nessaea batesii Hypothyris anastasia Eresia eunice Chloreuptychia herseis
Nessaea hewitsoni Hypothyris fluonia Eresia pelonia Euptychia binoculata
Nica flavilla Ithomia amarilla Historis odius Euptychia labe
Panacea prola Ithomia salapia Historis acheronta Euptychia myncea
Panacea regina Mechanitis lysimnia Metamorpha elisa Euptychia renata
Paulogramma peristera Mechanitis mazaeus Metamorpha sulpitia Hermeuptychia hermes
Phrrhogyra amphiro Mechanitis messenoides Phyciodes plagiata Magneuptychia analis
Pyrrhogyra crameri Methona confusa psamathe Siproeta stelenes Magneuptychia libye
Pyrrhogyra cuparina Methone Cecilia Smyrna blomfildia Magneuptychia ocnus
Pyrrhogyra cf nasica Oleria Gunilla Tigridia acesta Magneuptychia ocypete
Oleria ilerdina
60
Magneuptychia tiessa Napaea heteroea
Pareuptychia hesionides Nymphidium balbinus
Pareuptychia ocirrhoe Nymphidium caricae
Taygetis cleopatra Nymphidium chione
Taygetis echo Nymphidium lysimon
Taygetis mermeria Nymphidium mantus
Taygetis sosis Nyphidium nr minuta
Pandemos pasiphae
Papilionidae Perophtalma lasus
Battus belus varus Pirascca tyriotes
Rhetus arcius
Battus polydamas
Rhetus periander
Papilio androgeus
Sarota chrysus
Papilio thoas cyniras
Sarota spicata
Parides aeneas bolivar
Setabis gelasine
Parides lysander
Stalachtis calliope
Parides pizarro
Stalachtis phaedusa
Parides sesostris
Synargis orestessa
Riodinidae
Uranidae
Amarynthis meneria
Urania leilus
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
61

Amazon Phase Report 094 October-December 2009

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Amazon Phase Report 094 October-December 2009

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Global Vision International

2009 Report Series No. 004

Rainforest Conservation and Community

Phase Report 094

Amy Dutton Scholar Giles Knowles Volunteer

GVI Ecuador/Rainforest Conservation and Community Development

The Rainforest Conservation and Community Development expedition operated by Global

• Cataloguing species diversity in the Yachana Reserve in relation to regional diversity.

2.1 Bird Road Transects

Table 2.1.2: The seven most-sighted

2.2 Mist Netting

10 Percentages (%) per site

2.3 Screaming Pihas

Percentage of agreement between observers one and two for

Table 2.3.3 – Weather Incidences

4.2 Problem Statement

4.2.1 Current State of Amphibian and Reptile Research

Nocturnal and Diurnal Visual Encounter Surveys

Habitat Feature Mapping

Visual Encounter Surveys 094

Species Encountered Overall in the Project So Far:

Visual Encounter Surveys

6 Dung Beetle Research

Table 6.2.1: Habitat type of each dung beetle sampling site

Habitat Feature Mapping

6.3 Results and Discussion

Pitfall Trap Sampling

Table 6.3.1: Habitat Compared to Individuals Captured

Habitat Specificity and Assemblage Similarity

Table 6.3.2: Comparison of Habitat to Species Richness

Site Number of Species

Body Size & Abundance

7.1 Colegio Técnico Yachana (Yachana Technical High School)

7.2 TEFL at Puerto Rico

8 Future Expedition Aims

9.1 General References

Sutherland, W.J., 1996. Ecological census techniques: a handbook. University press,

9.2 Field Use References

de la Torre, S., 2000. Primates of Amazonian Ecuador. SIMBIOE, Quito.

Neild, A.F.E., 1996. The butterflies of Venezuela. Meridain Publications. London.

9.3 Dung Beetle References

Saunders, D. A., Hobbs, R. J. & Margules, C. R. (1991). Biological consequences of ecosystem

9.4 Amphibian References

T. A. Gardner, M.A.Ribeiro-Junior, J. Barlow, T. S. Avila-Pires, M.S. Hoogmeod and C. A. Peres

P. B. Pearman (1997) Correlates of Amphibian Diversity in an Altered Landscape of Amazonian

R. Pardini, D. Faria, G. M. Accacio, R. R. Laps, E. Mariano-Neto,

M. Rödel & R. Ernst (2004) MEASURING AND MONITORING AMPHIBIAN DIVERSITY IN

J. N. Urbina-Cardona, M. Olivares-Pe´rez, V. H. Reynoso (2006) Herpetofauna diversity and

10.5 Butterfly References

Class Aves CLASS AMPHIBIA

Capitonidae New World Barbets

Scolopacidae Sandpipers, Snipes and Phalaropes

Cathartidae American Vultures

Parulidae New World Warblers

Troglodytidae Wrens Cuculiformes

Turdidae Thrushes Opisthocomidae Hoatzin

Psittacidae Parrots and Macaws

Amazona ochrocephala Yellow-crowned Amazon Eira barbara Tayra

Ara severa Chestnut-fronted Macaw Lontra longicaudis Neotropical otter

Hylidae Tree Frogs Microhylidae Sheep Frogs

Leptodactylus wagneri Wagneris Jungle Frog Canthon luteicollis

Lithodytes lineatus Painted Antnest Frog Dichotomius ohausi

Oreobates quixensis Common big headed Rain Frog Dichotomius prietoi

Prystimantis aff peruvianus Peruvian Rain Frog Eurysternus carabaeus