Direct comparison of herpetofaunal camera, pitfall, and funnel trapping in the upland habitats of Florida, USA

Abstract Determining the best method to survey species of interest is critical for successful field research projects. When sampling herpetofauna, pitfall and funnel trapping allow a researcher to examine multiple individuals but require considerable field effort and animal handling. Recently, camera trapping has been used for studies focusing on herpetofauna. I compared pitfall and funnel arrays versus camera arrays during the same sampling events. I installed 60 triad drift fence arrays in the upland habitats of Avon Park Air Force Range in south‐central Florida, USA. The arrays were identical except half were pitfall arrays with 4 buckets and 6 funnel traps; the other half had a single bucket with a game camera facing downward in the center of the array. After 11 months of sampling, I recorded 2,373 herpetofaunal individuals of 33 species. Pitfall and funnel arrays captured 462 individuals of 28 species, whereas camera arrays recorded 1,911 individuals of 23 species. There were no significant differences in herpetofaunal assemblages between the 2 methods, but camera arrays recorded more individuals. Pitfall and funnel arrays were better for recording frog abundance and richness. Lizard richness was similar between methods, but the snake assemblages had many unique species with each method. A cost analysis found both methods to be relatively expensive, with pitfall and funnel trapping incurring higher labor costs and camera trapping having higher materials costs. I recommend using both pitfalls and cameras as the 2 methods were complementary, with each including species that the other missed. An ideal array design would have a center camera with pitfall and funnel traps along the arms, enabling the greatest species richness to be captured within a single array. Pitfall, funnel, and camera traps recorded high diversity and abundance of herpetofauna, proving to be useful for population and community studies.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Wildlife Society Bulletin
Published
2025-09-01
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1002/wsb.1611
Primary Topic
Species Distribution and Climate Change
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Direct comparison of herpetofaunal camera, pitfall, and funnel trapping in the upland habitats of Florida, USA

Tiffany M. Doan
Wildlife Society Bulletin
Species Distribution and Climate Change
article

Direct comparison of herpetofaunal camera, pitfall, and funnel trapping in the upland habitats of Florida, USA

Tiffany M. Doan
article en

Abstract

Abstract Determining the best method to survey species of interest is critical for successful field research projects. When sampling herpetofauna, pitfall and funnel trapping allow a researcher to examine multiple individuals but require considerable field effort and animal handling. Recently, camera trapping has been used for studies focusing on herpetofauna. I compared pitfall and funnel arrays versus camera arrays during the same sampling events. I installed 60 triad drift fence arrays in the upland habitats of Avon Park Air Force Range in south‐central Florida, USA. The arrays were identical except half were pitfall arrays with 4 buckets and 6 funnel traps; the other half had a single bucket with a game camera facing downward in the center of the array. After 11 months of sampling, I recorded 2,373 herpetofaunal individuals of 33 species. Pitfall and funnel arrays captured 462 individuals of 28 species, whereas camera arrays recorded 1,911 individuals of 23 species. There were no significant differences in herpetofaunal assemblages between the 2 methods, but camera arrays recorded more individuals. Pitfall and funnel arrays were better for recording frog abundance and richness. Lizard richness was similar between methods, but the snake assemblages had many unique species with each method. A cost analysis found both methods to be relatively expensive, with pitfall and funnel trapping incurring higher labor costs and camera trapping having higher materials costs. I recommend using both pitfalls and cameras as the 2 methods were complementary, with each including species that the other missed. An ideal array design would have a center camera with pitfall and funnel traps along the arms, enabling the greatest species richness to be captured within a single array. Pitfall, funnel, and camera traps recorded high diversity and abundance of herpetofauna, proving to be useful for population and community studies.

Wildlife Society BulletinVol. 49(3)
Archbold Biological Station (US)
University of Central Florida, Avon Park Air Force Range, Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program
Openalex Percentile: Top 87%
Species Distribution and Climate Change
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.

Direct comparison of herpetofaunal camera, pitfall, and funnel trapping in the upland habitats of Florida, USA — Tiffany M. Doan · Wildlife Society Bulletin (2025) | TGRS Research Map | TGRS