Abstract
Herpetofaunal surveys are useful to record data related to diversity, distribution and habitat preferences of amphibians and reptiles in any particular ecosystem. During past few years, a decline in amphibian and reptilian species attracted attention of the conservation biologists worldwide to monitor herpetofunal diversity for effective conservation planning and management. Different sampling techniques are applied during herpetofaunal surveys and some of them might be expensive, time intensive and their effectiveness in different regions of the world are still debatable. Moreover, data recorded from inappropriate designed surveys are not suitable for statistical analysis and provide inappropriate picture regarding distribution, abundance and status of target species. Current review inspects different sampling techniques, various issues related to surveys design, application and ethical issues connected with these sampling techniques. It can be concluded from the literature survey that all sampling techniques have biasness related to geographical position, habitat and species under consideration. Pitfall
traps are more effective for collection of ground dweller amphibians and reptiles having less jumping and climbing ability. Whereas, highly mobile species are captured through destructive means that cause disturbance to natural habitat. Cover boards are most likely to be used for long term surveys of amphibians. Furthermore, not even a single sampling technique can record all possible species in particular area. Researchers need to identify aims of survey and possible negative effects of sampling methods used on habitat and taxa under consideration. In addition, study area must be sub-divided into small patches and more than two suitable sampling techniques should be used to record all possible species.
Waqas Ali, Arshad Javid, Syed Mohsin Bhukhari, Ali Hussain, Syed Makhdoom Hussain, Hira Rafique. (2018) Comparison of Different Trapping Techniques used in Herpetofaunal Monitoring: A Review, Punjab University Journal of Zoology, Volume 33, Issue 1.
-
Views
477 -
Downloads
43
Article Details
Volume
Issue
Type
Language
Received At
Accepted At
