Amazon Report 091 January-march 2009

Global Vision International, XXXXX Report Series No. 00X ISSN XXXX-XXXX (Print)

GVI Ecuador Rainforest Conservation and Community Development

Phase Report 091 January – March 2009

GVI Ecuador/Rainforest Conservation and Community Development Expedition Report 091 ` Submitted in whole to Global Vision International Yachana Foundation Museo Ecuatoriano de Ciencias Naturales (MECN)

Produced by Chris Beirne – Field Staff Jonathan Escolar – Field Manager Matt Iles - Field Staff And

Katherine Allinson

Expedition Member

Sima Lowery

Expedition Member

Rebecca Andrews

Expedition Member

Victoria Morgan-Hill

Expedition Member

Robert Bakewell

Expedition Member

Dan Neilson

Expedition Member

Chelsea Bryson

Expedition Member

Mark Obeney

Expedition Member

Sophie Cousins

Expedition Member

James Pitt

Expedition Member

Cornelia Eberl

Expedition Member

Alan Rea

Expedition Member

Max Hardman

Expedition Member

Rachel Reisinger

Expedition Member

Sarah Henley

Expedition Member

Glen Skelton

Expedition Member

Amy Hill

Expedition Member

Jeanette Theuner

Expedition Member

Tom Keating

Expedition Member

Catherine Toops

Expedition Member

Duncan Lowery

Expedition Member

Natalie White

Expedition Member

Edited by Karina Berg – Country Director GVI Ecuador/Rainforest Conservation and Community Development Address: Casilla Postal 17-07-8832 Quito, Ecuador Email: [email protected] Web page: http://www.gvi.co.uk and http://www.gviusa.com

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 first phase of 2009 from 09 January to 20 March 2009, GVI has:

•

Added one bird species, the Fulvous-crested Tanager (Tachyphonus surinamus), to the reserve species list.

•

Conducted seven mist netting sessions, providing 37 captures of 13 different species.

•

Made incidental sightings of twelve species of mammal, two of which, the Water Rat (Nectomys squamipes) and the Common Opossum (Didelphis marsupialis), were new to the reserve species list.

•

Continued collecting swab samples from amphibians within the reserve in order to assess the status of the epidemic fungal disease Batrachochytrium dendrobatitus, which provided one positive result out of 68 samples.

•

Encountered 98 reptile and amphibian individuals through transect surveys.

•

Conducted a brief investigation into GVI’s impact on the environment surrounding base camp, by assessing amphibian and Benthic invertebrate populations.

•

Conducted preliminary investigations for a new project assessing dung beetle communities present in the reserve.

•

Added seven invertebrate species to the reserve species list.

•

Continued with English lessons for local school children in Puerto Rico.

•

Accommodated three graduate students from the Yachana Technical High School throughout the phase as part of a National Scholarship Program.

•

Welcomed two current students from the Yachana Technical High School to join the expedition for a three week period, in order to exchange language skills, knowledge and experience.

•

Sent four volunteers to spend a week at the Yachana Technical High School to partake in the school’s practical classes, and to provide drama workshops to enhance English language skills and environmental education lessons for the students.

iii

•

Visited a local student’s community and farm, in addition to running two field trips; one to Yasuní National Park and the second to Sumak Allpa, an island reserve and school run by an indigenous conservationist.

iv

Table of Contents 1 Introduction 2 Avian Research 2.1 Introduction 2.2 Methods 2.3 Results 2.4 Discussion 2.5 Conclusion 3 Mammal Incidentals 3.1 Introduction 3.2 Methods 3.3 Results 3.4 Discussion 3.5 Conclusion 4 Herpetological Research 4.1 Introduction 4.2 Determining the presence of Chytrid fungus 4.3 Pump Stream amphibian activity 4.4 Conclusion 5 Benthic Invertebrates and Stream Health 5.1 Introduction 5.2 Methods 5.3 Results 5.4 Discussion 5.5 Conclusion 6 Dung Beetle Research 6.1 Introduction 6.2 Methods 6.3 Results 6.4 Discussion 6.5 Conclusion 7 Invertebrate Incidentals 8 BTEC Advanced Certificate in Supervision of Biological Surveys 9 Community Development Projects 9.1 Colegio Técnio Yachana (Yachana Technical College) 9.2 National Scholarship Program 9.3 TEFL at Puerto Rico 10 Future Expedition Aims 11 References Appendix A – Dung Beetle Preliminary Research Results Appendix B – Species List Appendix C – Trail Map of Yachana Reserve

v

7 9 9 9 10 11 11 12 12 12 12 13 13 13 13 14 16 21 22 22 23 25 27 28 28 28 29 29 30 31 31 32 32 32 33 33 33 35 39 40 46

List of Figures Figure 4.1 Bar chart to show how many of each species were found in the lower Pump Stream region and which methods were successful in finding them. Figure 4.2 Bar chart to show how many of each species were found in the upper Pump Stream region and which methods were successful in finding them. Figure 6.1 EPT scores for upper and lower Pump Stream on each sample date and mean score. Figure 6.2 Sensitivity index scores for upper and lower Pump Stream on each sample date and mean score.

List of Tables Table 4.1: Sampling effort for Pump Stream surveys. Table 5.1 EPT Index scores. Table 5.2 Sensitivity Index scores. Table 5.3 Water quality results for upper Pump Stream on EPT and Sensitivity indices. Table 5.4 Water quality results for lower Pump Stream on EPT and Sensitivity indices.

vi

1

Introduction

The Rainforest Conservation and Community Development expedition operated by Global Vision International (GVI) is located at the Yachana Reserve in the Napo province in the Amazonian region of Ecuador. Yachana Reserve is a legally-designated Bosque Protector (Protected Forest), consisting of approximately 2000 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. The Yachana Foundation is dedicated to finding sustainable solutions to the problems facing the Ecuadorian Amazon region. The foundation works with indigenous 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. One of GVI’s main roles at the reserve is to provide support, where deemed necessary, for the development of the reserve’s 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 local students with meaningful education and pratical 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. 7

GVI additionally conducts Teaching English as a Foreign Language (TEFL) classes at the nearby community 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 topics such as introductions, animals, colours and expressions. This allows GVI to integrate with the local community, whilst giving volunteers the opportunity to experience first hand involvement in community development and TEFL. This is also currently laying the foundation to introduce environmental education programmes to the Puerto Rico community in the future. GVI also works with local research institutions. The Ecuadorian Museum for Natural Sciences (Museo Ecuatoriano de Ciencias Naturales, MECN) 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 has a permit through the MECN for the collection of specimens of reptiles, amphibians, small mammals and butterflies, and a permit for catching bats and birds. 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 our 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. With Pontifica Universidad Catolica Ecuador (PUCE), GVI has established a collaboration involving the amphibian projects within the reserve. PUCE has requested data from the reserve to aid in their ongoing conservation efforts towards the amphibians of the neotropics. 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 has shifted its research focus to answering ecological questions related to conservation. With this focus 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. 8

•

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 can be valuable for the promotion of The Yachana Reserve to visitors.

In order to achieve these goals, volunteers are trained by GVI personnel to conduct research on behalf of the local partners in support of their ongoing work. This report summarises the scientific research and community-based programmes conducted during the ten-week expedition from 09 January 2009 to 20 March 2009, at The Yachana Reserve.

2

Avian Research

2.1 Introduction GVI continues to monitor the avian communities within the reserve and to identify additional bird species using the following three survey techniques: local bird surveys, mist netting, and incidental sightings. 2.2 Methods 2.2.1 Local Bird Surveys This is a qualitative survey method conducted in the more open areas within the Yachana Reserve to facilitate visual surveying of birds. Trails that pass through secondary forest, plantation forest, open grassland, riparian forest, and along the road are surveyed during the morning (0600 - 0900 h) and afternoon (1600 – 1830 h) for bird activity. The date, start and end time, species heard or seen, number, and sex if known are recorded. 9

2.2.2 Mist Netting In order to collect individuals for identification and banding, mist netting is conducted. Nets are opened during peak bird activity in the morning and afternoon. Mist netting allows GVI to band individuals and identify less conspicuous species otherwise impossible to observe with other methodology. Conducted consistently over time, data can be collected that identifies migratory species, and shifts in diversity and abundance. Two areas of the reserve are currently sampled - an open area of secondary forest adjacent to grassland on the Ridge Trail, and a stretch of primary forest located on the Bloop Trail. 2.2.3 Incidental Data Recordings Species that were encountered outside of point count and local bird surveys are also recorded if they were believed to be rare or not previously identified to be within the reserve (e.g. nocturnal species during satellite camps). Incidental sightings can take place at any time, during any of the other survey or project work within the reserve. At the time of each incidence the time, location, date, species, and any other key characteristics or notes are taken and later entered into a database back in camp. 2.3 Results 2.3.1 Local Bird Surveys Four local bird surveys were conducted at two different sites (Ridge Lookouts 1 & 2). 51 individuals were counted in total, ranging from 9 to 21 individuals per survey. The most common of these was the Yellow-rumped Cacique (Cacicus cela). Several species of tanagers were also sighted throughout all surveys, including the Magpie Tanager (Cissopis leveriana), Masked Crimson Tanager (Ramphocelus nigrogularis), Scarlet Tanager (Piranaga olivacea) and the Thick-billed Euphonia (Euphonia laniirostris). 2.3.2 Mist Netting Seven mist netting sessions were conducted at two different sights (Ridge Trail and upper Bloop Trail) during the expedition. In total 37 individuals and 13 different species were captured over the seven sessions. Of these birds, two had been previously banded by GVI, a Blue-crowned Manakin (Lepidothrix coronata) and a White-necked Thrush (Turdus albicollis), both of which were recaptured in the primary rainforest where they were initially banded. Twelve bands were issued to suitable birds i.e. those that were not too stressed by capture and possessed a tarsus suitably sized to hold a band. 10

2.3.3 Incidental Sightings Incidental sightings added one new species to the Yachana species list this phase. This was the Fulvous-crested Tanager (Tachyphonus surinamus), observed on the Ficus Trail. 2.4 Discussion 2.4.1 Local Bird Surveys The data collected from local bird surveys is useful for documenting and identifying which species are common and which are rare within the reserve, providing valuable information to the Yachana Foundation and the Yachana Lodge, which is useful for the direction of the Management Plan, and the lodge’s tour guides and its visitors. Local bird surveys conducted throughout the year also reveal patterns of migratory species. 2.4.2 Mist Netting The mist netting surveys were particularly valuable for catching and identifying species otherwise difficult to detect or identify simply through observational methods. It is intended that mist netting will form a large part of future avian research in the reserve, with the intention of banding more individuals. This will provide interesting long-term data for recaptured individuals. 2.4.3 Incidental Sightings Incidental sightings added one new species to the list this phase, emphasizing the need to stay alert at all times when out in the forest and the need to use alternative methods (e.g. mist netting) for surveying secretive or rare bird species (Allen et al. 2004; Lacher et al. 2004). 2.5 Conclusion Avian survey work continues to focus on adding species to the reserve checklist. It is recommended, however, that future expeditions focus on using the data more constructively and use statistical indices to measure species richness and diversity. More mist netting should also be conducted as these surveys are particularly productive at revealing less detectable species. A new project is also currently being planned, with the aim of assessing the bird assemblages that are found along the road, which runs through the Yachana Reserve. As tourists staying at the Yachana Lodge use the road in order to view wildlife, particularly birds, it would be useful to have a catalogue of the species 11

associated with it and how the assemblages vary along the road. This may also provide some scientific insight into how the road affects the ecology of the bird population found within the reserve.

3 Mammal Incidentals 3.1 Introduction GVI continues to document mammal species in the reserve predominately through incidental sightings of the mammals and tracks they leave. The recording of mammals is confined to incidental recordings due to the fact that the occurrence of conspicuous diurnal mammals is low. Excessive mammal concentrated surveying is not sufficiently productive. However, long walks in the forest have been continued to increase chances of seeing diurnal and nocturnal mammals. 3.2 Methods All mammal species that were encountered outside of specific mammal surveys were recorded. Incidental sightings can take place at any time during any of the other survey or project work within the reserve, or during long walks into the forest. At the time of each incidence the time, location, date, species, and any other key characteristics or notes are taken and later entered into a database on return to camp. 3.3 Results During this phase, twelve mammal species were sighted incidentally, during other survey work or walks into the forest. Of these, two were new species to the Yachana species list. Incidental sightings included regular encounters with Amazon Red Squirrel (Sciurus sp.), Black Agouti (Dasyprocta fuliginosa), Black-mantled Tamarins (Saguinus nigricollis), Kinkajou (Potos flavus), Night monkeys (Aotus sp.) and Water Opossum (Chironectes minimus). Sightings were also made of Amazon Bamboo Rat (Dactylomys dactylinus), Four-eyed Opossum (Philander sp.), Neotropical Otter (Lontra longicaudis) and a Southern two-toed Sloth (Choloepus diadactylus). The Water Rat (Nectomys squamipes), encountered several times along the reserve’s main stream, and the Common Opossum (Didelphis marsupialis), observed in camp, were new additions to the reserve species list.

12

3.4 Discussion The elusiveness of many mammal species means they are often difficult to survey and particularly in the Yachana Reserve as their occurrence is less than regular. Incidental sightings alone have provided us with twelve of the 48 mammal species (19 of which are bats from past bat netting sessions). Two of the incidental sightings were new to the Yachana species list. 3.5 Conclusion Incidental sightings continue to provide the bulk of mammal encounters in the reserve. For this reason, night walks and long forays into the forest should be conducted regularly. These should ideally be performed in small groups in order to minimise disturbance and increase the likelihood of sightings. The two new additions to the species list are likely to have been resident in the reserve prior to these sightings, however have probably passed by unnoticed due to their ability to move around the forest inconspicuously.

This,

therefore, demonstrates the need to maintain vigilance at all time in the forest and around camp.

4 Herpetological Research 4.1 Introduction Herpetological research on the Yachana Reserve has recently focused on two areas. The first is to continue long term monitoring of the abundance and diversity of amphibians and lizards in the reserve. To date this work has contributed to a catalogue of species found within the reserve, with 61 species of amphibians idientified thus far, and the possible future production a field guide of the amphibians in the Yachana Reserve. The second is to determine the prevalence of Batrachochytrium dendrobatitus (commonly referred to as Chytrid fungus) within amphibian populations at the Yachana Reserve. The Chytrid fungus is the cause of the disease chytridiomycosis; one of the biggest threats facing amphibian populations worldwide - particularly in the tropics (Daszak et al., 1999). Chytrid fungus has only become a focus of global amphibian research and conservation in the past ten years, and the exact pathology of the disease is still unknown. This survey data also contributes to research at Pontificia Universidad Catolica del Ecuador (PUCE), who are studying at the presence and effects of the chytrid fungus on a national scale. This phase also saw the 13

introduction of a new project, an assessment of the effects of the Yachana Reserve/GVI base camp on the amphibian population assemblage of the surrounding environment. 4.2 Determining the Presence of Chytrid Fungus 4.2.1 Introduction Chytrid fungus has been attributed to extinctions and severe declines of amphibian populations worldwide (Menendez-Guerrero et al. 2006). In the phase 083, a swab sample from a rain frog on Stream 1, Prystimantis malkini, tested positive for the Chytrid fungus. However, the swab samples from phase 084 were found to be unanimously negative. Despite the apparent low abundance of Chytrid fungus within the reserve, it is important to continue swabbing individuals to determine whether or not the fungus is spreading. 4.2.2 Methods Sampling Techniques Amphibians and reptiles are surveyed by conducting stream walks and transects. These walks are conducted both during the day and at night in an attempt to target amphibians and reptiles with different activity patterns. Groups search along the banks and surrounding vegetation including overhanging branches and vines, which provide excellent cover for many species of tree frog. The time, position along the stream, and microhabitat are recorded for each specimen located. The individual’s snout to vent length (svl) is also noted, in addition to any physical characteristics that may aid the identification of unknown species.

Transects are similar to stream surveys except they are conducted through a segment of forest. Again, each transect is surveyed in the morning and early evening during peak amphibian and reptile activity, by thoroughly searching in the leaf litter and the surrounding vegetation. Information recorded is the same as for the stream surveys. During both surveys, unfamiliar species of amphibians are taken back to camp for further examination and, where applicable, samples are taken to send to PUCE in order to determine the status of the B. dendrobatitus pathogen.

14

Sampling of Chytrid Fungus In accordance with PUCE, captured amphibians are swabbed for PCR analysis in order to detect the presence of B. dendrobatitus. This involves swabbing the individual 30 times across the belly and a further 15 times on each leg, focusing on the groin region where the fungus is thought to be concentrated. Amphibians are then euthanized using the anaesthetic Lidocaine. A tissue sample is then taken from the frogs left thigh and an additional sample is taken from the liver. PUCE then uses these tissue samples to add to gene database of the amphibians of Latin America. This is part of a wider project linked to work at PUCE involving the captive breeding of rare and endemic species with the aim of reintroductions. Incidental Sightings Species that were encountered outside of stream and forest transect surveys were also swabbed and recorded using the same protocols as on stream and forest transects. A record was also kept of all incidental reptile sightings, including their location and microhabitat. 4.2.3 Results Chytrid Fungus Testing Fifteen stream and forest transects were conducted during the phase, which resulted in the encounter of 72 amphibian individuals, 68 of which where swabbed to detect the presence or absence of the Chytrid fungus. The swabs were sent to PUCE for analysis by Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR). One sample was found to be positive for Chytrid: Prystimantis ockendeni complex, on the upper Pump Stream. All other samples were found to be negative for the Chytrid fungus. Species Encountered During this phase, 98 reptile and amphibian individuals were encountered comprising of 30 species. Of the 72 amphibians located, 70% belonged to six common species; Ameerega billinguis, Engostymops petersi, Oreobates quixensis, Osteocephalus cabrerai complex, Prystimantis malkini and Prystimantis ockendeni complex. Other sightings of note were Prystimantis nigrovitattus, Hypsiboas boans and Lithodytes lineatus.

15

4.2.4 Discussion Chytrid Fungus Despite recording a positive result for the Chytrid fungus test during this phase, the low prevalence of the fungus means it should not be a research priority for subsequent phases. However, it will be important to repeat swabbing for Chytrid fungus in six months as the threat of a Chytrid fungus epidemic cannot be ruled out in the future. Species Encountered Transect walks and incidental sightings are still providing valuable data for both the long term monitoring project and the field guide. Any future projects should include these methods in their data collection. 4.3 Pump Stream Amphibian Survey 4.3.1 Introduction Amphibians are vital indicators of environmental quality as they are very susceptible to changes in the environment (Gardner et al, 2007; Lyaruu et al, 2000). According to Gardner et al (2007) it is essential that we learn more about the patterns of diversity and habitat preferences of individual species. This data can then be used to monitor population declines and inform effective conservation strategies, particularly where amphibians act as indicators of change in their environment. The GVI base camp is situated in close proximity to a small stream running close to the camp in which water is regularly pumped out for use in daily camp life. Used water is then allowed to drain back into the local surrounding environment. Amphibians are particularly sensitive to changes in water quality and have frequently been described as excellent indicators of water quality and the stability of the surrounding environment. The impact that the GVI base camp has on the surrounding environment was assessed to determine any adverse affects that may be avoided in future work related to daily camp living. The principal goal of the study is to investigate the amphibian assemblages along the Pump Stream close to the GVI base camp. Surveys were conducted in areas before water is pumped from the stream and then further down stream after it has been pumped out. Through conducting Benthic surveys along the stream we can also gain a good 16

assessment of water quality related to invertebrate assemblages and detect any differences in stream water quality in the locations pre and post the pumping of water for base camp, in accordance with amphibian data. 4.3.2 Methods Two main methods were implemented to assess the presence of different amphibian species along the lower and upper regions of the Pump Stream; pitfall trapping and visual encounter surveys. Pitfall Trapping At two sites, one on the upper and one on the lower Pump Stream, leaf-litter amphibian and lizards were sampled with pitfalls traps and drift fences. At each sample site, two 20litre plastic buckets were installed parallel to the stream edge. The buckets were connected via an eight meter long, 50 cm high plastic baffle. The lower Pump Stream was sampled from the 02 March 2009 to the 09 March 2009 and the upper Pump Stream was sampled from the 09 March 2009 to the 16 March 2009. This resulted in 28-nights of sampling effort in each stream. All amphibians captured were collected to remove the possibility of subsequent recapture at a later date. Visual Encounter Surveys Nocturnal and crepuscular visual encounter surveys were employed along 120m stream transects in the upper and lower Pump Stream. Where possible both transects were surveyed on the same day to minimise the effect of weather variation on the amphibian assemblage. The surveys took place the 23 February 2009 and the 12 March 2009. The surveys took place at times that have been found to coincide with peak frog activity: crepuscular surveys took place between 0530 h and 0830 h, and nocturnal surveys took place between 1930 h and 2230 h. Transects were searched at a rate of roughly one meter per minute. All amphibians found within 3m of each side of the stream were captured and collected thus removing the possibility that they would be recaptured on a later survey. To minimise the effect of team size and transect duration variability, a measure of effort was calculated by determining the number of search minutes per transect (see Table 4.1). These values were calculated by multiplying the search time for each transect by the number of observers on each transect. 17

23-Feb-09 25-Feb-09 03-Mar-09 06-Mar-09 09-Mar-09 12-Mar-09 Total Effort

Sampling Effort (sampling time x num. Observers) Upper Lower 896 833 575 642 810 400 575 565 420 2793 2923

Table 4.1: Sampling effort for Pump Stream surveys.

Surveying rainforest habitat is a privileged opportunity; however there is the potential to negatively affect the ecosystem by passing infections between sites and species. Good practices will be strictly adhered to so as to ensure transmissions are not possible. This will be achieved by systematic cleaning of tools, equipment, and sterile gloves will be changed when handling different individuals. All volunteers were fully briefed regarding precautionary measures and effective surveying techniques. Benthic Surveying Benthic surveys were conducted in both the upper and lower transects of the Pump Stream to assess water quality based upon invertebrate species found within the stream. The methods and details of this work can be viewed in the corresponding Benthic survey report of the GVI Yachana Reserve Pump Stream. Weather Data Weather data was collected using a Sun-Moon Radio Controlled Weather Station at the GVI base camp. Temperature, pressure, humidity, cloud cover and rainfall data was recorded at 0600 h, 1200 h and 1800 h daily. 4.3.3 Results In total, three species of amphibian were found in the lower Pump Stream region (see Table 4.2) whilst in the upper Pump Stream region we found seven species (see Table 4.3). Eight different species were found in total. Rhinella marinus was the only species unique to the lower Pump Stream area, whilst Allobates bilinguis, Hypnodactylus nigrovittatus, Pristimantis martiae and Pristimantis acuminatus were all species found only 18

within the upper areas of the Pump Stream. Pristimantis ockendeni and Bolitoglossa peruviana were the two species that were common to both the upper and lower Pump Stream transects.

In total 18 individuals were caught throughout the sampling period, six of which were caught within the pitfall traps and the other twelve being caught on visual encounter surveys. Five of the nine P. ockendeni caught were captured in pitfall traps with only a single H. nigrovittatus being the only other pitfall capture. No significant correlation was found between the number of amphibians encountered and; temperature (R2=0.229), rainfall (R2=0.036) or pressure (R2=0.010).

6 Pitfall Trapping Visual Encounter Survey

Number of Individuals Encountered

5

4

3

2

1

0 Prystimantis okendeni

Bolitoglossa peruviana

Rhinella marinus

Species Encountered on Lower Pump Stream

Figure 4.1 Bar chart to show the number of each species found in the lower Pump Stream region and which methods were successful in finding them.

19

6

Pitfall Trapping Visual Encounter Survey 5

Number of Individuals Encountered

4

3

2

1

0 Prystimantis okendeni

Allobates biliguis

Bolitoglossa peruviana

Hypnodactylus nigrovittatus

Pristimantis martiae

Oreobates quixensis

Pristimantis acuminatus

Species Encountered on Upper Pump Stream

Figure 4.2 Bar chart to show the number of each species found in the upper Pump Stream region and which methods were successful in finding them.

4.3.4 Discussion The results from this phase do appear to indicate that there is a greater species richness of amphibians to be found within the upper areas of the Pump Stream than the lower areas. This may indicate that the GVI base camp is having an adverse effect on the quality of the lower area by frequently pumping out water and allowing used water to drain off into the area. For this reason we suggest that this work be repeated throughout future GVI phases in order to increase the robustness of the data collected here, enough to carry out statistical analysis. The number of individuals actually caught within the study was very small to be able to conduct any reliable statistical analysis. It may be a factor to be taken into consideration for collection and removal of water for the GVI base camp in the near future. At this stage we can not simply assess the differences in species found due to any effects of the GVI camp. It could simply be that there are differences in microhabitats at these different transects of the stream. Vegetation mapping could be used to investigate this in a future surveying period on these sites.

20

The study was too short term to see if any significant relationships between weather variables and amphibian abundances were present. This data was recorded throughout the study however must be continued for any comparison in other research phases to see if any trends between weather data sets and amphibian abundances become apparent in the future. The project was conducted not only to assess the effects of GVI camp on the Pump Stream but also to trial sampling methods on amphibians within the area for their suitability and effectiveness. This was very useful in allowing us to determine the effectiveness of both methods. The pitfall traps are labour intensive to prepare and install but once up are very quick and easy to check. They seemed particularly useful in detecting P. ockendeni which is a leaf litter egg laying species. The visual encounter surveys are particularly important in detecting a variety of different species which otherwise would not have been found. Overall it can be seen that a combination of methods is essential and will be used within our future GVI surveys. 4.4 Conclusion It would appear that the reserve has a relatively low background rate of Chytrid fungus infection. Due to this, it is unlikely that we will resume swabbing for the Chytrid fungus within the next six months. It will be vital to recommence swabbing in the future, however it is not a research priority at the current time.

The investigation into the effects of camp water removal and waste release on the amphibian assemblages within the upper and lower Pump Stream offered encouraging preliminary results, with the caveat that we did not collect sufficient data to perform reliable statistical tests. The methods will be repeated in future phases with the aim to increase the robustness of our preliminary conclusion. The data collected this phase will also be used to build a one year long term study into amphibian assemblages of the Yachana Reserve. The project will be focused on pitfall trapping, as we have found it to be a reliable and successful method. It also has the advantage of negating observer bias effects due to varying group sizes and experience levels. However, the visual encounter method of amphibian and reptile diction has also

21

proved valuable to sample a larger subset of the species found on the reserve. Any future project will certainly employ a combination of these two methods.

5

Benthic Invertebrates and Stream Health

5.1 Introduction GVI has been using the research station at the Yachana Reserve for approximately three years. The infrastructure of the site unfortunately lacks a proper grey water system, and instead waste water from sinks and showers is drained into a large wooden-sided subterranean tank where it gradually seeps into an adjacent waterway. Chemicals used on the site and therefore released into the ecosystem include bleach, detergent, DEET, laundry soap and other personal hygiene products. Fecal matter from toilets is contained in a similar tank and therefore must also slowly leach into the surrounding soil and waterways.

Two study sites were investigated that represented two different treatments: one predischarge (sample site two), that is not impacted by wastewater from GVI base camp and a second post-discharge (sample site one), located downstream from GVI and therefore exposed to any effluents. It is therefore expected that sample site two, the upper Pump Stream, will have higher water quality as it is not impacted by effluents discharged by GVI base camp. Sampling Benthic invertebrate communities is a reliable and economical way of determining water quality (Feinsinger, 2001). Each invertebrate family has differing sensitivities to contaminants, and their presence, or absence, as well as abundance can be used in different analytical indices to give an indication of water quality. Over 50 different methods have been developed for the biological assessment of water quality in temperate countries (Cota et. al., 2002) and some have been adapted for use in tropical regions and their associated biota. The analyses selected for this investigation are discussed fully in subsequent sections.

22

5.2 Methods 5.2.1 Site Selection Two study sites were selected, each representing a different treatment. One site was located before waste water from the base camp entered the water system (upper Pump Stream) and the other site selected in an area downstream to where waste water was discharged (lower Pump Stream). Study sites were selected based on the presence of areas of fast flowing shallow water over rocky substrate known as riffles. Valid study sites contained riffles of both suitable size and abundance to allow for the collection of 30 samples to be taken from the selected study area. 5.2.2 Collection Samples were collected by employing a modified kick sampling technique (Sutherland, 1996) with the use of a Surber net (300mm x 300mm). The Surber net was placed upon the substrate of identified riffles with the net positioned downstream, allowing for the collection of dislodged individuals. The area of each sample was defined by the frame of the Surber net resting on the substrate, and all loose stones within it were hand scrubbed before being placed outside of the sample area and the remaining substrate disturbed thoroughly by hand to a depth of one inch. After the sample was completed any removed stones were placed back in their original position so as to minimize disturbance. After each sample, the contents of the Surber net were emptied into a large bucket with the net being thoroughly flushed with stream water and then visually checked for remaining specimens. Collected materials from the sample were divided into trays and searched for specimens with any individuals found being removed with tweezers and placed in a killing jar containing 70% alcohol. A separate killing jar was used for casecrafting Trichoptera to aid in the identification process. The above process was repeated until 15 samples from each survey site were collected. A further 15 samples were taken at later dates from both the upper and lower Pump Stream. 5.2.3 Identification Collected specimens were taken back to the field base and using a taxonomic key (Reyes & Peralbo, 2001) identified to family level before being tallied. Identification was performed using 10x hand lenses. 23

5.2.4 Analyses Tallied results were then used in conjunction with both Ephemeroptera-PlecopteraTrichoptera (EPT) index and an individual sensitivity index (Reyes & Peralbo, 2001) to determine water quality for the selected study areas. The EPT index measures the percentage of individuals from the orders Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera and Trichoptera against the total number of individuals in each sample. These three orders are used as they are particularly sensitive to changes in water quality. The higher the percentage on this index, the higher the quality of the water. Table 5.1 shows how the scores relate to water quality.

EPT Total 75 - 100% 50 - 74% 25 - 49% 0 - 24%

Water quality Very Good Good Moderate Poor

Table 5.1 EPT Index scores.

This index works on the presence or absence of different orders, sub orders or families that each have a different degree of sensitivity to contaminants. Each group is assigned a value of 1 - 10, the groups given a rating of 10 being the most sensitive and the ones rated 1, least sensitive. The score from the groups present is added up and higher scores indicate a higher quality of water. Table 5.2 shows the values given to each group. Sensitive Species Total 101 - 145+ 61 – 100 36 – 60 16 – 35 0 – 15

Water quality Very Good Good Moderate Poor Very Poor

Table 5.2 Sensitivity Index scores.

24

5.3 Results 5.3.1 Upper Pump Stream The upper Pump Stream was sampled on two occasions, the 25 February 2009 and the 04 March 2009. Each time, 15 Surber net samples were collected from different locations. Table 5.3 shows the results for water quality from each sample day and a mean value for both on the EPT and Sensitivity indices. In all three the water quality is rated as moderate by the EPT index and very good on the sensitivity index.

Sample 25 Feb 2009 04 Mar 2009 Mean

EPT index score 43.35 34.81 39.08

Sensitivity index score 130 109 119.5

Table 5.3 Water quality results for upper Pump Stream on EPT and Sensitivity indices.

5.3.2 Lower Pump Stream The lower Pump Stream was also sampled on two occasions, the 23 Feburary 2009 and the 17 March 2009. Again, 15 Surber net samples were taken from individual locations on each sampling date. Table 5.4 shows the results for water quality from each sample day and a mean value for both indices. According to the EPT index water quality is poor in the sample taken on the 23 February 2009, and moderate on both the the 17 March 2009 and on average. On the Sensitivity index it is rated as very good for all three samples.

Sample 23 Feb 2009 17 Mar 2009 Mean

EPT index score 22.95 29.35 26.15

Sensitivity index score 123 143 133

Table 5.4 Water quality results for lower Pump Stream on EPT and Sensitivity indices.

5.3.3 EPT Combined Results Results from the EPT index support the null hypothesis that water quality is higher in the upper Pump Stream. Figure 5.1 shows the EPT scores from the upper and lower Pump Stream on both sample dates and a mean score of the two.

25

Figure 6.1 EPT scores for upper and lower Pump Stream on each sample date and mean score.

5.3.4 Sensitivity Combined Results The results from the Sensitivity index analysis do not support the null hypothesis. Instead they indicate that on average water quality is marginally higher in the lower Pump Stream. Figure 5.2 shows the Sensitivity index scores from the upper and lower Pump Stream on both sample dates and their mean.

Figure 6.2 Sensitivity index scores for upper and lower Pump Stream on each sample date and mean score.

26

5.4 Discussion The major surprise presented by the results of this study is that the EPT index and Sensitivity index gave contradicting results for all the samples collected. The values obtained from the EPT index fit the null hypothesis that water quality is higher on the upper Pump Stream, although the sample size is too small to test for a significant difference statistically. With the Sensitivity index however, water quality was on average higher in the lower Pump Stream, although again, the sample size was not large enough to test for significant differences. The reason for this disparity is that the analyses used are unsuitable for the Neotropical region, despite the fact that these were taken from a source designed for use in Ecuador by Ecuadorians (Reyes & Peralbo, 2001). The use of the EPT index gives unreliable results because the number of families of stoneflies (Plecoptera) drops off to just one, Perlidae, the closer one is to the equator (Feinsinger, 2001). After further research and consultation a more suitable analysis was found for the Neotropics, the BMWP/Col index (Contreras et. al., 2008) that uses more relevant families as sensitivity indicators. The use of the Sensitivity index is also questionable because unlike the EPT index it does not take abundance into account.

This could affect the accuracy of results as some

samples yield substantially more individuals than others. For example, the 17 March 2009 sample consisted of 620 individual invertebrates, whereas the other three samples had a mean of 173 individuals. It should be noted however, that the BMWP/Col index also ignores abundance and works solely on presence or absence of families. The identification key provided by Reyes and Peralbo (2001) also limited the accuracy of the study as a large proportion of the invertebrates collected could only be identified as ‘other’. A new key (Contreras, et. al., 2008) that enables identification of a greater number of families will be used for future studies. The use of the Surber net to sample riffles was effective, although other studies have found kick nets to yield better and more cost-effective results (Buss & Borges, 2008). A combination of the two methods would enable sampling of both riffles and pools and may give a more complete sample of benthic invertebrate assemblages.

27

Some other physical factors that may affect the lower Pump Stream and potentially skew results have been noted. First, a landslide has blocked the flow of the stream in one area creating a large, still body of water. The flow then returns to normal but the 17 March 2009 sample was taken downstream from this site as there were not enough suitable riffles higher up the waterway. A road is also in close proximity to a stretch of the lower Pump Stream, and although the level of traffic is low, runoff could potentially have an impact on water quality. Another factor that must be addressed in future studies is non-use of weather data in correlation with these data. Precipitation levels can have a significant effect on Benthic macro invertebrate communities, as many may be washed away after periods of heavy rainfall. There was particularly heavy rainfall prior to surveying the upper Pump Stream on the 04 March 2009 that may have washed away a significant number of the invertebrates present. 5.5 Conclusion The main conclusion drawn from this investigation is that the analyses used were unreliable at giving an accurate reflection of water quality as they are unsuited to Neotropical freshwater habitats. The sample sites should be re-sampled and analysed using the BMWP/Col index and a more detailed identification key, and deeper water areas should be sampled using kick nets in addition to the sampling of riffles with Surber nets. Moreover, a greater number of samples should be taken to allow a statistical analysis of the samples to be carried out. Ideally this should be conducted at regular interval throughout the year to look for seasonal variations and these data should be correlated with weather data. As the water quality results are unreliable we are unable to make recommendations regarding changes to GVI practice and infrastructure.

6 Dung Beetle Research 6.1 Introduction Dung beetles (Order Coleoptera, Family Scarabaeidae) are broadly recognised as a good indicator of habitat quality (Spector & Forsyth, 1998). They are a useful target group for 28

investigating spatial and temporal patterns of biodiversity. By burying dung on which adults and larvae feed upon, dung beetles act as secondary seed dispersers, accelerate nutrient recycling rates, increase plant yield and regulate vertebrate parasites (Mittal, 1993; Andresen, 1999). Significant relationships have been found to exist between the numbers of mammals at study sites, and the richness of species and individuals of dung beetles (Estrada et al., 1998). At the Yachana Reserve there is a unique opportunity to investigate variation in habitat type and fragmentation upon dung beetle communities. The reserve consists of a patchwork of varying habitat types, comprising approximately 2000 hectares of predominantly primary lowland rainforest, in addition to abandoned plantations, grassland, riparian forest, regenerating forest and a road. The reserve is also a fragment of primary lowland rainforest in the context of the larger landscape, as it borders an agricultural matrix on two sides and the Napo River on another. 6.2 Methods Trials were conducted in order to establish a standardised method for long-term assessment of the dung beetle community at the Yachana Reserve. A standard method for trapping dung beetles using baited pitfall traps, recommended by the Scarabaeinae Research Network, was used throughout all trials. This involved placing two cups, one inside the other, in the ground with the upper lip flush with the ground, so as to allow beetles to fall into the trap. Two cups are used so that the upper cup may be removed and emptied easily. Traps were baited with 20g of fresh mammal dung suspended 5cm above the trap in a muslin net. A leaf was placed above this to cover the trap in order to protect the bait from rain. The cup may or may not be filled a third of the way with a preservative liquid, used to kill captured dung beetles and prevent them from escaping. Ten traps were placed at any one time in each site, along trails in the forest. Nine separate trials were then conducted, in three different locations. Each used various combinations of different trap exposure time, bait type and trap spacing. 6.3 Results The preliminary results table is shown in Appendix A. Captured individuals from each of the ten traps were pooled to provide a total ‘catch’ for each sampling period. Catches varied from between 4 and 298 individuals, although eight of the nine trials harboured 55 29

or less individuals. Species richness of catches varied from one to nine. Species numbers are all estimates at this stage due to a lack of identification resources. Species were found which belong to the Genera Canthon, Eurysternus and Deltochilum, amongst others that have as yet been determined. One catch alone harboured 298 individuals and an estimated nine species. 6.4 Discussion One of the first findings of preliminary trials was that the removal of all leaf litter from within a close proximity of the trap made the pitfall more successful. In the second trial, it appeared that traps placed on or near slopes were more successful, whereas a later trial suggested that traps going down a steep slope harboured a lesser yield. These differences are likely to be due to variation in wind direction or bait detection by beetles, and would require further investigation to determine the effect of gradients on trap effectiveness.

There appeared to be no major differences in the effectiveness of bait type (horse or cattle, both readily available from nearby agricultural land). However, bait freshness was important, and it is recommended that dung bait should be as fresh as possible when used. If agricultural dung freshness is questionable, then human dung may be used. The single trap that was baited using a dead frog yielded a species not seen in any of the other catches, perhaps indicating that this beetle was a carrion specific feeder. In two of the three trials performed within the secondary forest matrix (Ridge Trail), there were markedly less individual beetles and beetle species within the catch. Moreover, in the final trial it was noted that most of the traps located in grassland, which is found in this secondary matrix, attracted solely one species of beetle. Trap spacing created apparently little difference in catch yield. Trials conducted using salt water as a preservative were found to leave specimens smelling horrible, whereas solely using water and a tiny amount of detergent (to increase surface tension of the water and therefore prevent beetles from escaping) worked suitably in killing beetles without specimen quality deteriorating. Using no preservative, in an attempt to undertake live capture, did not reduce total catch numbers significantly. Trap exposure time remained constant for all trials in primary forest, but was reduced for those within the secondary matrix, in order to maximise trap efficiency during live capture. 30

6.5 Conclusion These preliminary trials have provided some insight into how best to undertake dung beetle surveys, whilst helping to finalise a pitfall trapping method. Dung bait must be as fresh as possible and, in accordance with recommendations by Larsen and Forsyth (2005), will be replaced every 48 hours. Traps will be checked every 24 hours in future, regardless of whether traps contain preservative or not, in order to maintain consistency throughout live beetle and specimen collection. It is proposed that a future dung beetle project will focus on the differences between the dung beetle communities in the primary rainforest and those in the secondary rainforest matrix. Grid transects will be established in six separate sites (three in primary forest, three in secondary matrix), each consisting of nine traps in a 100m2 area, each trap separated by 50m (Larsen and Forsyth, 2005). Primarily comparisons will be made between the primary forest and the secondary matrix, using a T-test. Within the secondary matrix, comparisons can be made between the varying microhabitats (e.g. grassland, riparian forest and ex-cacao plantation) using an Analysis of Variance test. Similar comparisons can be made between microhabitat in the primary rainforest present in the Yachana Reserve. The project also has scope to contain more ecologically focused study aspects. This may include examining bait preferences in the dung beetle communities, for example, various dung types, dung sizes, vertebrate carrion, invertebrate carrion, rotting fruit and fungus. There is also an opportunity to examine abundance and ranging, through mark and recapture methods.

7 Invertebrate Incidentals Due to the varying interests of new staff members, more notice has been taken of the wider invertebrate communities present in the Yachana Reserve. During Phase 091, three species of Coleoptera (beetle), one species of Hemiptera (true bug), one species of Grylloptera (crickets and katydids) and two species of Araneae (spider) were added to the reserve species list through incidental sightings alone. This interest will undoubtedly continue and more species are sure to be added in the future as more specific identification resources are sought. There is also the opportunity to perform surveys on 31

occasional basis, for the interest of volunteers, such as the use of light traps for moths and other insects.

8 BTEC Advanced Certificate in Supervision of Biological Surveys Volunteers joining for a five or ten week expedition, have the opportunity to complete a BTEC course in the Supervision of Biological Surveys, equivalent to an A-level qualification. The course consists of five units, ranging in content from Target Species Identification, Survey Techniques, to learning about Expedition Logistics, and Community Development. This course is a hands-on, applied course that builds on the training and knowledge that all volunteers receive during the initial training week. Over the course of the ten weeks eight volunteers were certified. During this expedition, volunteers chose an area of specialization, and conducted their assignments based on their interests. In this way, volunteers with special abilities were able to improve our data collection.

9 Community Development Projects 9.1 Colegio Técnico Yachana (Yachana Technical High School) A large component of the expedition consists of exchange with students from the Yachana High School. During this expedition four volunteers and one staff member attended the high school for a week. They took part in the high school’s practical sessions alongside the current students. The sessions in which they participated included animal husbandry, ecotourism, agronomy and environmental education. The volunteers also provided several English classes instead of the students’ regular English lessons, including drama workshops and environmental education. The week proved to be hugely enjoyable and beneficial to all involved. GVI will look to make this a permanent component of future phases. Two current students from the Yachana Technical High School also joined the expedition for three weeks. They participated in all aspects of the expedition and additionally took part in language exchange sessions with volunteers and staff.

32

9.2 National Scholarship Program Graduates from the Yachana Technical High School are offered a place on the expedition as part of a National Scholarship Program. Each week, two or three students become integral members of the expedition during which time they are involved 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 members. During phase 091, GVI hosted three students throughout the expedition. 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 shared their culture, teaching traditional basket-weaving, traditional achiote-painting, providing indigenous language (Quichua and Chachi) and cooking lessons (e.g. empanadas), teaching the uses of medicinal plants, and demonstrating how to build several animal traps.

9.3 TEFL at Puerto Rico Formal English classes were provided by volunteers and staff for one hour on Tuesdays and Thursdays, to school children of the neighbouring community of Puerto Rico. The relationship between GVI and Puerto Rico is continuing to grow and strengthen, and GVI is looking to provide environmental education programmes to the community in the future as part of the conservation work carried out here. Classes this phase focused on numbers, body parts, expressions, animal habitats, colours, geography and mathematics. As the nearest discrete community to the reserve, GVI’s relationship with the community is an important component of the expedition providing benefit to both its residents and GVI volunteers.

10 Future Expedition Aims


The biodiversity programme will be continued, opportunistically re-surveying sites, and expanding the survey areas within the reserve.




The direction of the avian research program will refocus upon mist netting and a new project examining the avifauna associated with the road running through the reserve.




Herpetological research will become more focused and will include the widespread use of pitfall traps throughout the reserve.

33




The impact of GVI upon the natural landscape in which it inhabits will continue to be monitored through a variety of methods.




A thorough examination of the dung beetle communities found in the reserve will commence, using grid transects.




The BTEC course will continue to be offered and run for all interested volunteers.




GVI will continue to co-ordinate with the Yachana Technical High School, continuing with various exchanges.




TEFL at Puerto Rico will continue with a more defined focus for each age group and an overall aim enabling the students to compose full sentences.

34

11 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. Andresen, E., 1999. Seed dispersal by monkeys and the fate of dispersed seeds in the Peruvian rain forest. Biotropica 31: 145-158. Buss D. F. & Borges E. L., 2008. ‘Application of Rapid Bioassessment Protocols (RBP) for Benthic Macroinvertebrates in Brazil: Comparison between Sampling Techniques and Mesh Sizes.’ Neotropical Entomology 37 (3): 288-295. Contreras J., Roldán G., Arango A. & Álvarez L.F., 2008. ‘Evaluación de la calidad del agua de las microcuencas La Laucha, La Lejía y La Rastrojera, utilizando los macroinvertebrados como bioindicadores, Municipio de Durania, Departamento Norte de Santander, Colombia.’ Rev. Acad. Colomb. Cienc. 32 (123): 171-193. Cota, L., Goulart, M., Moreno, P. & Callisto, M. ‘Rapid assessment of river water quality using an adapted BMWP index: a practical tool to evaluate ecosystem health’. Verh. Internat. Verein. Limnol. 28: 1-4. 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. 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. Feinsinger, P., 2001. Designing Field Studies for Biodiversity Conservation. Island Press, Washington. 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.

35

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. Karr, J.R., 1999. Defining and measuring river health. Freshwater Biology 41: 221-234. Kroodsma, D.E., 1984. Songs of the Alder Flycatcher (Empidonax alnorum) and Willow Flycatcher (Empidonax traillii) are innate. Auk 101, 13-24. Lacher, T., 2004. Tropical Ecology, Assessment, and Monitoring (TEAM) Initiative: Avian Monitoring

Protocol

version

3.

Conservation

International,

Washington,

DC.

www.teaminitiative.org. Larsen, T.H., Forsyth, A., 2005. Trap spacing and transect design for dung beetle biodiversity studies. Biotropica 37: 322-325. Lyaruu H.V., Eliapenda S., Backeus I., 2000. Floristic, structural and seed bank diversity of a dry Afromontane forest at Mafai, central Tanzania. Biodiversity and Conservation 9(2): 241-263. 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. Mittal, I.C., 1993. Natural manuring and soil conditioning by dung beetles. Tropical Ecology 34: 150-159. Ridgely, R.S., Greenfield, P.J., 2001. The birds of Ecuador. Volume I. Status, Distribution, and Taxonomy. Cornell University Press, New York. Scarabaeinae Research Network - http://216.73.243.70/scarabnet/ Spector, S., Forsyth, A.B., 1998. Indicator taxa for biodiversity assessment in the vanishing tropics. Conservation Biology Series 1: 181-209. 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). 36

References used in the field to identify species: Bartlett, R.D., Bartlett, P., 2003. Reptiles and amphibians of the Amazon. An ecotourist’s guide. University Press of Florida, Gainsville. Bollino, M., Onore G., 2001. Butterflies & moths of Ecuador.

Volume 10a. Familia:

Papilionidae. Pontificia Universidad Católica del Ecuador, Quito. Carrera, C., Fierro, K., 2001. Manual de monitoreo los macroinvertebrados acuáticos. EcoCiencia, Quito. Carrillo, E., Aldás, S., Altamirano, M., Ayala, F., Cisneros, D. Endara, A., Márquez, C., Morales, M., Nogales, F, Salvador, P., Torres, M.L., Valencia, J., Villamarín, F., Yánez, M., Zárate, P., 2005. Lista roja de los reptiles del Ecuador. Novum Milenium, Quito. de la Torre, S., 2000. Primates of Amazonian Ecuador. SIMBIOE, Quito. DeVries, P.J., 1997. The butterflies of Costa Rica and their natural history. Volume II: Riodinidae. Princeton University Press, Princeton. Duellman, W.E., 1978. The biology of an equatorial herpetofauna in Amazonian Ecuador. The University of Kansas, Lawrence. Eisenberg, J.F., Redford, K.H., 1999. Mammals of the neotropics: The central neotropics. Volume 3 Ecuador, Peru, Bolivia, Brazil. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Emmons, L.H., Feer, F., 1997. Neotropical rainforest mammals. A field guide, second edition. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Moreno E., M., Silva del P., X., Estévez J., G., Marggraff, I., Marggraff, P., 1997. Mariposas del Ecuador. Occidental Exploration and Production Company, Quito. Neild, A.F.E., 1996. The butterflies of Venezuela. Meridain Publications. London. 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. 37

Tirira S., D., 2001. Libro rojo de los mamíferos del Ecuador. SIMBIOE/EcoCiencia, Quito.

38

48

48

48

48

48

48

24

24

24

Ficus

Ficus

Ficus

Ficus

Bloop

Bloop

Ridge

Ridge

Ridge

Location

Trap exposure time (hrs)

None

10

none

10

10

10

39

50

50

50

40

40

20

10

10

20

20

20

Trap spacing (m)

10

10

10

Number of traps

none

horse dung

water and detergent

cattle dung

None

salt water and detergent salt water and detergent salt water and detergent

horse dung horse dung cattle dung

horse dung cattle dung cattle dung

Preservative salt water and detergent

Bait type horse dung

Dung beetle preliminary research results

Appendix A

28

6

13

55

41

298

4

28

5

Number of beetles caught

6

2

1

5

6

9

2+

4+

1

Estimated number of species

Five traps were placed in grassland while four in forest land along ridge trail. Higher abundance of beetles found along grassland traps however they were mainly the same 'small metallic green' species. More species variation along the forest traps.

One trap containing frog carrion yielded new species, perhaps carrion specific feeder. Horse dung was fresher than previously used. Despite no preservative, catch still high and all beetles caught alive.

Cattle dung not as fresh as last time. Some dung attacked by ants. Fewer beetles found in traps going down main Bloop slope.

Dung very fresh

The most successful traps were near or on slopes and had the least leaf litter around the trap. 14 collected from trap 40m. Dung appeared fresher during this session than following and previous session.

Notes

Appendix B – Species List BIRDS SCIENTIFIC NAME

COMMON NAME

SCIENTIFIC NAME

COMMON NAME

Columbiformes

Tinamiformes Tinamidae

Tinamous

Columbidae

Pigeons and Doves

Crypturellus bartletti

Bartlett's Tinamou

Claravis pretiosa

Blue Ground-Dove

Crypturellus cinereus

Cinereous Tinamou

Columba plumbea

Plumbeous Pigeon

Crypturellus soui

Little Tinamou

Geotrygon montana

Ruddy Quail-Dove

Crypturellus undulatus

Undulated Tinamou

Leptotila rufaxilla

Gray-fronted Dove

Crypturellus variegatus

Variegated Tinamou

Tinamus major

Great Tinamou

Psittaciformes

Ciconiformes

Psittacidae

Parrots and Macaws

Amazona farinosa

Mealy Amazon

Amazona ochrocephala

Yellow-crowned Amazon

Ara severa

Chestnut-fronted Macaw

Aratinga leucophthalmus

White-eyed Parakeet

Aratinga weddellii

Dusky-headed Parakeet

Ardeidae

Herons, Bitterns and Egrets

Ardea cocoi

Cocoi Heron

Bubulcus ibis

Cattle Egret

Butorides striatus

Striated Heron

Pionites melanocephala

Black-headed Parrot

Egretta caerulea

Little Blue Heron

Pionopsitta barrabandi

Orange-cheeked Parrot

Egretta thula

Snowy Egret

Pionus menstruus

Blue-headed Parrot

Tigrisoma lineatum

Rufescent Tiger-Heron

Pionus chalcopterus

Bronze-winged Parrot

Pyrrhura melanura

Maroon-tailed Parakeet

Cathartidae

American Vultures

Cathartes aura

Turkey Vulture

Cuculiformes

Cathartes melambrotus

Greater Yellow-headed Vulture

Cuculidae

Cuckoos and Anis

Coragyps atractus

Black Vulture

Crotophaga ani

Smooth-billed Ani

Sarcoramphus papa

King Vulture

Crotophaga major

Greater Ani

Piaya cayana

Squirrel Cockoo

Piaya melanogaster

Black-bellied Cuckoo

Opisthocomidae

Hoatzin

Opisthocomus hoazin

Hoatzin

Falconiformes Accipitridae

Kites, Eagles, Hawks, and Osprey

Buteo magnirostris

Roadside Hawk

Buteo polyosoma

Variable Hawk

Elanoides forficatus

Swallow-tailed Kite

Harpagus bidentatus

Double-toothed Kite

Ictinia plumbea

Plumbeous Kite

Leptodon cayanensis

Strigiformes Strigidae

Typical Owls

Glaucidium brasilianum

Ferruginous Pygmy-Owl

Lophostrix cristata

Crested owl

Gray-headed Kite

Otus choliba

Tropical Screech-Owl

Leucopternis melanops

Black-faced Hawk

Otus watsonii

Tawny-bellied Screech-owl

Leucopternis albicollis

White Hawk

Pulsatrix perspicillata

Spectacled owl

Pandion haliaetus

Osprey

Falconidae

Falcons and Caracaras

Nyctibiidae

Potoos

Daptrius ater

Black Caracara

Nyctibius aethereus

Long-tailed Potoo

Falco rufigularis

Bat Falcon

Nyctibius grandis

Great Potoo

Ibycter americanus

Red-throated Caracara

Nyctibius griseus

Common Potoo

Herpetotheres cachinnans

Laughing Falcon

Micrastur gilvicollis

Lined Forest-Falcon

Caprimulgidae

Nightjars and Nighthawks

Micrastur semitorquatus

Collared Forest-Falcon

Nyctidromus albicollis

Pauraque

Milvago chimachima

Yellow-headed Caracara

Nyctiphrynus ocellatus

Ocellated Poorwill

Caprimulgiformes

Apodiformes

Galliformes Cracidae

Curassows, Guans, and Chachalacas

Nothocrax urumutum

Nocturnal Curassow

Ortalis guttata

Speckled Chachalaca

Penelope jacquacu

Spix's Guan

Odontophoridae

New World Quails

Odontophorus gujanensis

Marbled Wood-Quail

Charadriiformes

Apodidae

Swifts

Chaetura cinereiventris

Grey-rumped Swift

Streptoprocne zonaris

White-collared Swift

Trochilidae

Hummingbirds

Amazilia franciae cyanocollis

Andean Emerald Hummingbird

Amazilia fimbriata

Glittering-throated Emerald

Anthracothorax nigricollis

Black-throated Mango

Campylopterus largipennis

Gray-breasted Sabrewing

Campylopterus villaviscensio

Napo Sabrewing

Scolopacidae

Sandpipers, Snipes and Phalaropes

Eriocnemis vestitus

Glowing Puffleg

Actitis macularia

Spotted Sandpiper

Eutoxeres condamini

Buff-tailed Sicklebill

Tringa solitaria

Solitary Sandpiper

Glaucis hirsuta

Rufous -breasted Hermit

Heliothryx aurita

Black-eared Fairy

Recurvirostridae

Plovers and Lapwings

Phaethornis bourcieri

Straight-billed Hermit

Hoploxypterus cayanus

Pied Plover

Phaethornis hispidus

White-bearded Hermit

Phaethornis malaris

Great-billed Hermit

Thalurania furcata

Fork-tailed Woodnymph

Gruiformes Rallidae

Rails, Gallinules, and Coots

Anurolimnatus castaneiceps

Chestnut-headed Crake

Aramides cajanea

Gray-necked Wood-Rail

40

BIRDS continued SCIENTIFIC NAME

COMMON NAME

Trogoniformes Trogonidae

Trogons and Quetzals

Pharomachrus pavoninus

Pavonine Quetzal

Trogon melanurus

Black-tailed Trogon

Trogon viridis

Amazonian White-tailed Trogon

Trogon collaris

Collared Trogon

Trogon rufus

Black-throated Trogon

Trogon violaceus

Amazonian Violaceous Trogon

Trogon curucui

Blue-crowned Trogon

Coraciiformes Alcedinidae

Kingfishers

Chloroceryle amazona

Amazon Kingfisher

Chloroceryle americana

Green Kingfisher

Chloroceryle inda

Green and Rufous Kingfisher

Megaceryle torquata

Ringed Kingfisher

Momotidae

Motmots

Baryphthengus martii

Rufous Motmot

Electron platyrhynchum

Broad-billed Motmot

Momotus momota

Blue-crowned Motmot

Tyrannidae

Tyrant Flycatchers

Attila spadiceus

Bright-rumped Attila

Conopias cinchoneti

Lemon-browed Flycatcher

Conopias parva

Yellow-throated Flycatcher

Contopus virens

Eastern Wood-Pewee

Hemitriccus zosterops

White-eyed Tody-tyrant

Legatus leucophaius

Piratic Flycatcher

Leptopogon amaurocephalus

Sepia-capped Flycatcher

Lipaugus vociferans

Screaming Piha

Megarynchus piangu

Boat-billed Flycatcher

Myiarchus tuberculifer

Dusky-capped Flycatcher

Myiarchus ferox

Short-crested Flycatcher

Myiobius barbatus

Whiskered Flycatcher

Myiodynastes maculatus

Streaked Flycatcher

Myiodynastes luteiventris

Sulphur-bellied Flycatcher

Mionectes oleagineus

Ochre-bellied Flycatcher

Myiozetetes granadensis

Gray-capped Flycatcher

Myiozetetes luteiventris

Dusky-chested Flycatcher

Myiozetetes similis

Social Flycatcher

Ochthornis littoralis

Drab Water-Tyrant

Pachyramphus marginatus

Black-capped Becard

Pitangus sulphuratus

Great Kiskadee

Rhynchocyclus olivaceus

Olivaceous Flatbill

Rhytipterna simplex

Grayish Mouner

Terenotriccus erythrurus

Ruddy-tailed Flycatcher

Tityra cayana

Black-tailed Tityra

Tityra inquisitor

Black-crowned Tityra

Tityra semifasciata

Masked Tityra

Todirostrum chrysocrotaphum

Yellow-browed Tody-Flycatcher

Tolmomyias poliocephalus

Gray-crowned Flatbill

Tolmomyias viridiceps

Olive-faced Flatbill

Tyrannulus elatus

Yellow-crowned Tyrannulet

Tyrannus savana

Fork-tailed Flycatcher

Tyrannus tyrannus

Eastern Kingbird

Tyrannus melancholicus

Tropical Kingbird

Zimmerius gracilipes

Slender-footed Tyrannulet

Cotingidae

Cotinga

Ampelioides tschudii

Scaled Fruiteater

Cotinga cayana

Spangled Cotinga

Cotinga maynana

Plum-throated Cotinga

Gynnoderus foetidus

Bare-necked Fruitcrow

Iodopleura isabellae

White-browed Purpletuft

Querula purpurata

Purple throated Fruitcrow

Pipridae

Manakins

Chiroxiphia pareola

Blue-backed Manakin

Chloropipo holochlora

Green Manakin

Dixiphia pipra

White-crowned Manakin

Lepidothrix coronata

Blue-crowned Manakin

Machaeropterus regulus

Striped Manakin

Manacus manacus

White-bearded Manakin

Pipra erythrocephala

Golden-headed Manakin

Tyranneutes stolzmanni

Dwarf Tyrant Manakin

SCIENTIFIC NAME

COMMON NAME

Corvidae

Crows, Jays, and Magpies

Cyanocorax violaceus

Violaceous Jay

Vireonidae

Vireos, Peppershrikes, and Shrike Vireos

Vireo olivaceus

Red-eyed Vireo

Turdidae

Thrushes

Catharus ustulatus

Swainson's Thrush

Turdus albicollis

White-necked Thrush

Turdus lawrencii

Lawrence's Thrush

Hirundinidae

Swallows and Martins

Atticora fasciata

White-banded Swallow

Stelgidopteryx ruficollis

Southern rough-winged swallow

Tachycineta albiventer

White-winged Swallow

Troglodytidae

Wrens

Campylorhynchus turdinus

Thrush-like Wren

Donacobius atricapillus

Black-capped Donacobius

Henicorhina leucosticta

White-breasted Wood-wren

Microcerculus marginatus

Southern Nightingale-Wren

Thryothorus coraya

Coraya Wren

Polioptilidae

Gnatcatchers and Gnatwrens

Microbates cinereiventris

Tawny-faced Gnatwren

Parulidae

New World Warblers

Basileuterus fulvicauda

Buff-rumped Warbler

Dendroica fusca

Blackburnian Warbler

Dendroica striata

Blackpoll Warbler

Piciformes Galibulidae

Jacamars

Jacamerops aureus

Great Jacamar

Bucconidae

Puffbirds

Chelidoptera tenebrosa

Swallow-winged Puffbird

Bucco macrodactylus

Chestnut-capped Puffbird

Malacoptila fusca

White-chested Puffbird

Monasa flavirostris

Yellow-billed Nunbird

Monasa morphoeus

White-fronted Nunbird

Monasa nigrifrons

Black-fronted Nunbird

Notharchus macrorynchos

White-necked Puffbird

Capitonidae

New World Barbets

Capita aurovirens

Scarlet-crowned Barbet

Capita auratus

Gilded Barbet

Eubucco bourcierii

Lemon-throated Barbet

Ramphastidae

Toucans

Pteroglossus azara

Ivory-billed Aracari

Pteroglossus castanotis

Chestnut-eared Aracari

Pteroglossus inscriptus

Lettered Aracari

Pteroglossus pluricinctus

Many-banded Aracari

Ramphastos vitellinus

Channel-billed Toucan

Ramphastos tucanus

White-throated Toucan

Selenidera reinwardtii

Golden-collared Toucanet

Picidae

Woodpeckers and Piculets

Campephilus melanoleucos

Crimson-crested Woodpecker

Picidae cont.

Woodpeckers and Piculets

Campephilus rubricollis

Red-necked Woodpecker

Celeus elegans

Chestnut Woodpecker

Celeus flavus

Cream-coloured Woodpecker

Celeus grammicus

Scale-breasted Woodpecker

Chrysoptilus punctigula

Spot-breasted Woodpecker

Dryocopus lineatus

Lineated Woodpecker

Melanerpes cruentatus

Yellow-tufted Woodpecker

Picumnus lafresnayi

Lafresnaye's piculet

Veniliornis fumigatus

Smoky-brown Woodpecker

Veniliornis passerinus

Little Woodpecker

Passeriformes

41

Furnariidae

Ovenbirds

Automolus rubiginosus

Ruddy Foliage-gleaner

Philydor pyrrhodes

Cinammon-rumped Foliage-gleaner

Sclerurus caudacutus

Black-tailed Leaftosser

BIRDS continued SCIENTIFIC NAME

COMMON NAME

SCIENTIFIC NAME

COMMON NAME

Icteridae

American Orioles and Blackbirds

Cacicus cela

Yellow-rumped Cacique

Cacicus solitarius

Solitary Cacique

Clypicterus oseryi

Casqued Oropendola

Icterus chrysocephalus

Moriche Oriole

Icterus croconotus

Orange-backed Troupial

Molothrus oryzivorous

Giant Cowbird

Psarocolius angustifrons

Russet-backed Oropendola

Psarocolius decumanas

Crested Oropendola

Psarocolius viridis

Green Oropendola

Dendrocolaptidae

Woodcreepers

Dendrexetastes rufigula

Cinnamon-throated Woodcreeper

Dendrocincla fuliginosa

Plain Brown Woodcreeper

Glyphorynchus spirurus

Wedge-billed Woodcreeper

Lepidocolaptes albolineatus

Lineated Woodcreeper

Xiphorhynchus ocellatus

Ocellated Woodcreeper

Xiphorhynchus guttatus

Buff-throated Woodcreeper

Xiphorhynchus picus

Straight-billed Woodcreeper

Thamnophilidae

Typical Antbirds

Cercomacra cinerascens

Gray Antbird

Chamaeza nobilis

Striated Antthrush

Dichrozona cincta

Banded Antbird

Frederickena unduligera

Undulated Antshrike

Formicarius analis

Black-faced Antthrush

Hersilochmus dugandi

Dugand's Antwren

Hylophlax naevia

Spot-backed Antbird

Hylophylax poecilinota

Scale-backed Antbird

Hypocnemis cantator

Warbling Antbird

Hypocnemis hypoxantha

Yellow-browed Antbird

Myrmeciza hyperythra

Plumbeous Antbird

Myrmeciza immaculata

Sooty Antbird

Myrmeciza melanoceps

White-shouldered Antbird

Myrmotherula axillaris

White-flanked Antwren

Myrmotherula hauxwelli

Plain-throated Antwren

Myrmotherula longipennis

Long-winged Antwren

Myrmotherula ornata

Ornate Antwren

Myrmotherula obscura

Short-billed Antwren

Myrmornis torquata

Wing-banded Antbird

Myrmothera campanisona

Thrush-like Antpitta

Phlegopsis erythroptera

Reddish-winged Bare-eye

Phlegopsis nigromaculata

Black-spotted Bare-eye

Pithys albifrons

White Plumbed Antbird

Carollia brevicauda

Thamnomanes ardesiacus

Dusky-throated Antshrike

Carollia castanea

Thamnophilus murinus

Mouse-colored Antshrike

Carollia perspicullatus

Short-tailed fruit bat

Thamnophilus schistaceus

Plain-winged Antshrike

Rhinophylla pumilio

Little fruit bat

Schistocichla leucostigma

Spot-winged Antbird Desmodontinae

Vampire bats

Tanagers, Honeycreepers, Bananaquit, and Plushcap

Desmodus rotundus

Common vampire bat

Thraupidae Chlorophanes spiza

Green Honeycreeper

Emballonuridae

Sac-winged/Sheath-tailed Bats

Cissopis leveriana

Magpie Tanager

Saccopteryx bilineata

White-lined bat

Creugops verticalis

Rufous-crested Tanager

Cyanerpes caeruleus

Purple Honeycreeper

Glossophaginae

Long tongued bats

Dacnis flaviventer

Yellow-bellied Dacnis

Glossophaga soricina

Long tongued bat

Euphonia laniirostris

Thick-billed Euphonia

Lonchophylla robusta

Spear-nosed long-tongued bat

Euphonia rufiventris

Rufous-bellied Euphonia

Euponia xanthogaster

Orange-bellied Euphonia

Stenodermatidae

Neotropical Fruit bats

Euphonia chrysopasta

White-lored Euphonia

Artibeus jamaicensis

Large fruit-eating bat

Habia rubica

Red-crowned Ant-Tanager

Artibeus lituratus

Large fruit bat

Hemithraupis flavicollis

Yellow-backed Tanager

Artibeus obscurus

Large fruit bat

Piranaga olivacea

Scarlet Tanager

Artibeus planirostus

Large fruit bat

Piranaga rubra

Summer Tanager

Chiroderma villosum

Big-eyed bat

Ramphocelus carbo

Silver-beaked Tanager

Sturrnia lilium

Hairy-legged bat

Ramphocelus nigrogularis

Masked Crimson Tanager

Sturnria oporaphilum

Yellow shouldered fruit bat

Tachyphonus cristatus

Flame-crested Tanager

Uroderma pilobatum

Tent-making bat

Tachyphonus surinamus

Fulvous-crested Tanager

Vampyrodes caraccioli

Great Stripe-faced bat

Tangara callophrys

Opal-crowned Tanager

Tangara chilensis

Paradise Tanager

Phyllostominae

Spear-nosed Bats

Tangara mexicana

Turquoise Tanager

Macrophyllum macrophyllum

Long-legged bat

Tangara schrankii

Green-and-gold Tanager

Mimon crenulatum

Hairy-nosed bat

Tangara xanthogastra

Yellow-bellied Tanager

Phyllostomus hastatus

Spear-nosed bat

Tersina viridis

Swallow Tanager

Thraupis episcopus

Blue-gray Tanager

Vespertilionidae

Vespertilionid Bats

Thraupis palmarum

Palm Tanager

Myotis nigricans

Little brown bat

Cardinalidae

Saltators, Grosbeaks, and Cardinals

Primates

Monkeys

Cyanocompsa cyanoides

Blue-black Grosbeak

Callitrichidae

Saltator grossus

Slate-colored Grosbeak

Saguinus nigricollis

Saltator maximus

Buff-throated Saltator

MAMMALS SCIENTIFIC NAME

COMMON NAME

Marsupialia Didelphidae

Opossums

Chironectes minimus

Water opossum

Didelphis marsupialis

Common opossum

Marmosa lepida

Little rufous mouse opossum

Micoureus demerarae

Long-furred woolly mouse opossum

Philander sp.

Four-eyed opossum

Xenarthra Megalonychidae Subfamily Choloepinae

Two-toes sloths

Choloepus diadactylus

Southern two-toed sloth

Dasypodidae

Armadillos

Cabassous unicinctus

Southern naked-tailed armadillo

Dasypus novemcinctus

Nine-banded armadillo

Chiroptera Carollinae

Short-tailed Fruit bats

Black-mantle tamarind

Cebidae Emberizidae

Emberizine Finches

Allouatta seniculus

Red howler monkey

Ammodramus aurifrons

Yellow-browed Sparrow

Aotus sp.

Night monkey

Oryzoborus angloensis

Lesser Seed-Finch

Cebus albifrons

White-fronted capuchin

Carnivora

Carnivores

Fringillidae

Cardueline Finches

Carduelis psaltria

Lesser Goldfinch

42

Procyonidae

Raccoon

Nasua nasua

South american coati

Potos flavus

Kinkajou

MAMMALS continued SCIENTIFIC NAME

COMMON NAME

Mustelidae

Weasel

Eira Barbara

Tayra

Lontra longicaudis

Neotropical otter

Felidae

Cat

Herpailurus yaguarundi

Jaguarundi

Leopardus pardalis

Ocelot

Puma concolor

Puma

Artidactyla

Peccaries and Deer

Mazama Americana

Red brocket deer

Tayassu tajacu

Collared peccary

Rodentia

Rodents

Echimyidae Dactylomys dactylinus

Amazon bamboo rat

Nectomys squamipes

Water rat

Proechimys semispinosus

Spiny rat

SCIENTIFIC NAME

COMMON NAME

Drepanoides anomalus

Amazon Egg-eating snake

Drymouluber dichrous

Common glossy racer

Helicops angulatus

Banded south american water snake

Helicops leopardinus

Spotted water snake

Imantodes cenchoa

Common blunt-headed tree snake

Imantodes lentiferus

Amazon blunt-headed tree snake

Leptodeira annulata annulata

Common cat-eyed snake

Leptophis cupreus

Brown parrot snake

Liophis miliaris chrysostomus

White-lipped swamp snake

Liophis reginae

Common swamp snake

Oxyrhopus formosus

Yellow-headed calico snake

Oxyrhopus melanogenys

Black-headed calico snake

Oxyrhopus petola digitalus

Banded calico snake

Pseustes poecilonotus polylepis

Common bird snake

Pseustes sulphureus

Giant bird snake

Sphlophus compressus

Red-vine snake

Spilotes pullatus Tantilla melanocephala melanocephala

Tiger rat snake

Xenedon rabdocephalus

Common false viper

Black-headed snake

Sciuridae

Squirrels

Xenedon severos

Giant false viper

Sciurus sp.

Amazon red squirrel

Xenoxybelis argenteus

Green-striped vine snake

Sciurillus pusillus

Neotropical pygmy squirrel Viperidae

Vipers

Large Cavylike Rodents

Bothriopsis taeniata

Speckeled forest pit viper

Agouti paca

Paca

Bothrops atrox

Fer-de-lance

Coendou bicolour

Bi-color spined porcupine

Lachesis muta muta

Amazon Bushmaster

Dasyprocta fuliginosa

Black agouti

Hydrochaeirs hydrochaeirs

Capybara

Boidae

Boas

Myoprocta pratti

Green acouchy

Boa constrictor imperator

Common boa constrictor

Corallus enydris enydris

Amazon tree boa

Epicrates cenchria gaigei

Peruvian rainbow boa

REPTILES SCIENTIFIC NAME

Elapidae

COMMON NAME

Lizards

Micurus hemprichii ortonii

Orange-ringed coral snake

Gekkonidae

Micrurus langsdorfii

Langsdorffs coral snake

Gonatodes concinnatus

Collared forest gecko

Micrurus lemniscatus

Eastern ribbon coral snake

Gonatodes humeralis

Bridled forest gecko

Pseudogonatodes guianensis

Amazon pygmy gecko

Micrurus spixii spixxi Micurus surinamensis surinamensis

Aquatic coral snake

Alopoglossus striventris

Black-bellied forest lizard

Alligatoridae

Arthrosaura reticulata reticulata

Reticulated creek lizard

Paleosuchus trigonatus

Gymnophthalmidae

Central amazon coral snake

Crocodilians Smooth-fronted caiman

Cercosaura ocellata Leposoma parietale

Common forest lizard

Neusticurus ecpleopus

Common streamside lizard

Prionodactylus argulus

Elegant-eyed Lizard

Prionodactylus oshaughnessyi

White-striped eyed lizard

AMPHIBIANS

Iguanas

Caecilians

Hoplocercidae Enyalioides laticeps

Typhlonectidae

Amazon forest dragon

Caecilia aff. tentaculata

Polychrotidae Anolis fuscoauratus

Slender anole

Anolis nitens scypheus

Yellow-tongued forest anole

Anolis ortonii

Amazon bark anole

Anolis punctata

Amazon green anole

Anolis trachyderma

Common forest anole

Tropiduridae Tropidurus (Plica) plica Tropidurus (plica) umbra ochrocollaris

Collared tree runner Olive Tree Runner

Plethodontidae

Lungless Salamanders

Bolitoglossa peruviana

Dwarf climbing salamander

Bufonidae

Toads

Rhinella marina

Cane Toad

Rhinella complex margaritifer

Crested Forest Toad

Rhinella dapsilis

Sharp-nosed Toad

Dendrophryniscus

Leaf Toads

Dendrophryniscus minutus

Orange bellied leaf toad

Centrolenidae

Glass Frogs

Kentropyx pelviceps

Forest whiptail

Centrolene sp.

undescribed Glass Frog

Tupinambis teguixin

Golden tegu

Cochranella anetarsia

Glass Frog

Cochranella midas

Glass Frog

Cochranella resplendens

Glass Frog Poison Frogs

Teiidae

Colubridae

Snakes

Atractus elaps

Earth snake sp3

Atractus major

Earth snake

Dendrobatidae

Atractus occiptoalbus

Earth snake sp2

Ameerega bilinguis

Chironius fuscus

Olive whipsnake

Ameerega ingeri

Chironius scurruls

Rusty whipsnake

Ameerega insperatus

Clelia clelia clelia

Musarana

Ameerega zaparo

Dendriphidion dendrophis

Tawny forest racer

Colostethus bocagei

Dipsas catesbyi

Ornate snail-eating snake

Colostethus marchesianus

Ucayali Rocket Frog

Dipsas indica

Big-headed snail-eating snake

Dendrobates duellmani

Duellmans Poison Frog

43

Ruby Poison Frog Sanguine Poison Frog

AMPHIBIANS continued SCIENTIFIC NAME

COMMON NAME

Hylidae

Tree Frogs

Cruziohyla craspedopus

Amazon Leaf Frog

cf. Sphaenorhychus carneus

Pygmy hatchet-faced Tree Frog

Dendropsophus bifurcus

Upper Amazon Tree Frog

Dendropsophus marmorata

Neotropical Marbled Tree Frog

Dendropsophus rhodopeplus

Red Striped Tree Frog

Dendropsophus triangulium

Variable Clown Tree Frog

Hemiphractus aff. Scutatus

Casque-headed Tree Frog

Hyla lanciformis

Rocket Tree Frog

INVERTEBRATES SCIENTIFIC NAME

COMMON NAME

Moths Thysania Agrippina

White Witch

Urania leilus

Green Urania

Rothschildia sp.

Window-winged Saturnian

Hemiptera Dysodius lunatus

Hylomantis buckleyi

Lunate Flatbug

Grylloptera

Hylomantis hulli

Panacanthus cuspidatus

Hypsiboas boans

Gladiator Tree Frog

Hypsiboas calcarata

Convict Tree Frog

Hypsiboas geographica

Map Tree Frog

Hypsiboas punctatus

Common Polkadot Tree Frog

Osteocephalus cabrerai complex

Forest bromeliad Tree Frog

Spiny Devil Katydid

Araneae

Osteocephalus cf. deridens

Nephila clavipes

Golden Silk Spider

Ancylometes terrenus

Giant Fishing Spider

Coleoptera

Osteocephalus leprieurii

Common bromeliad Tree Frog

Osteocephalus planiceps

Flat-headed bromeliad Tree Frog

Trachycephalus resinifictrix

Amazonian Milk Tree Frog

Phyllomedusa tarsius

Warty Monkey Frog

Phyllomedusa tomopterna

Barred Monkey Frog

Phyllomedusa vaillanti

White-lined monkey Tree Frog

Scinax garbei

Fringe lipped Tree Frog

Scinax rubra

Two-striped Tree Frog

Trachycephalus venulosus

Common milk Tree Frog

Microhylidae

Sheep Frogs

Chiasmocleis bassleri

Bassler's Sheep Frog

Leptodactylidae

Rain Frogs

Edalorhina perezi

Eyelashed Forest Frog

Prystimantis acuminatus

Green Rain Frog

Prystimantis aff peruvianus

Peruvian Rain Frog

Prystimantis altamazonicus

Amazonian Rain Frog

Prystimantis conspicillatus

Chirping Robber Frog

Prystimantis lanthanites

Striped-throated Rain Frog

Prystimantis malkini

Malkini's Rain Frog

Prystimantis martiae

Marti's rainfrog

Prystimantis ockendeni complex

Carabaya Rain Frog

Prystimantis sulcatus

Broad-headed Rain Frog

Prystimantis variabilis

Variable Rain Frog

Hypnodactylus nigrovittatus

Black-banded Robber Frog

Strabomantis sulcatus

Broad-headed Rain Frog

Engystomops petersi

Painted Forest Toadlet

Leptodactylus andreae

Cocha Chirping Frog

Leptodactylus knudseni

Rose-sided Jungle Frog

Leptodactylus mystaceus Leptodactylus rhodomystax

Moustached Jungle Frog

Leptodactylus wagneri

Wagneris Jungle Frog

Lithodytes lineatus

Painted Antnest Frog

Oreobates quixensis

Common big headed Rain Frog

Vanzolinius discodactylus

Dark-blotched Whistling Frog

Ranidae

True Frogs

Rana palmipes

Neotropical Green Frog

44

Euchroma gigantea

Giant Ceiba Borer

Homoeotelus d'orbignyi

Pleasing Fungus Beetle

BUTTERFLIES SCIENTIFIC NAME Nymphalinae Anartia amathae Anartia jatrophae Baeotus deucalion Bia actorion Biblis hyperia Callicore cynosura

SCIENTIFIC NAME

SCIENTIFIC NAME

Morphinae

Ithomiinae

Morpho Achilles

Aeria eurimidea

Morpho deidamia

Ceratinia tutia

Morpho helenor

Eueides isabella

Morpho Menelaus

Eueides lampeto

Morpho peleides

Eueides lybia

Morpho polycarmes

Hyposcada anchiala Hyposcada illinissa

Callizona acesta Catonephele acontius Catonephele esite

Acraeinae

Hypothyris anastasia

Actinote sp.

Hypothyris fluonia Ithomia amarilla

Catonephele numilia Colobura dirce Consul fabius Diaethria clymena Dynamine aerata Dynamine arthemisia Dynamine athemon Dynamine gisella Eresia pelonia Eunica alpais

Papilionidae

Ithomia salapia

Battus belus varus

Mechanitis lysimnia

Battus polydamas

Mechanitis mazaeus

Papilio androgeus

Mechanitis messenoides

Papilio thoas cyniras

Methona confusa psamathe

Parides aeneas bolivar

Methone cecilia

Parides Lysander

Oleria Gunilla

Parides pizarro

Oleria ilerdina

Parides sesostris

Oleria tigilla Tithorea harmonia

Eunica amelio Eunica volumna Hamadryas albicornus Hamadryas arinome Hamadryas chloe Hamadryas feronia Hamadryas laodamia Historis odius Historis acheronta Hypna clytemnestra Marpesia berania Marpesia petreus Metamorpha elisa Metamorpha sulpitia Nessaea batesii Nessaea hewitsoni Nica flavilla Panacea prola Paulogramma peristera Phyciodes plagiata

Satyrinae

Pyrrhogyra cuparina Pyrrhogyra otolais Siproeta stelenes Smyrna blomfildia

Limenitidiae

Cithaerias aurora

Adelpha amazona

Cithaerias menander

Adelpha cocala

Cithaerias pireta

Adelpha cytherea

Euptychia binoculata

Adelpha erotia

Euptychia ocypete

Adelpha iphicleola

Haetera macleania

Adelpha iphiclus

Haetera piera

Adelpha lerna

Hermeuptychia hermes

Adelpha melona

Magneuptychia libye

Adelpha mesentina

Magneuptychia ocnus

Adelpha messana

Pareuptychia ocirrhoe

Adelpha naxia

Pierella astyoche

Adelpha panaema

Pierella hortona

Adelpha phrolseola

Pierella lamia

Adelpha thoasa

Pierella lena

Adelpha viola

Pierella lucia

Adelpha ximena

Taygetis mermeria

Pieridae Appias Drusilla Dismorphia pinthous Eurema cf xanthochlora Peirhybris lorena Phoebis rurina

Limenitidinae

Agrias claudina

Doxocopa agathina

Archaeoprepona amphimachus

Doxocopa griseldis

Archaeoprepona demophon

Doxocopa laurentia

Archaeoprepona demophon muson

Doxocopa linda

Archaeoprepona licomedes Memphis arachne

Heliconinae

Memphis oenomaus

Dryas iulia

Memphis philomena Prepona eugenes

Eueides Eunice

Prepona dexamenus

Heliconius erato

Prepona laertes

Heliconius melponmene

Prepona pheridamas

Heliconius numata

Zaretis isidora

Heliconius sara

Zaretis itys

Heliconius xanthocles Lycaenidae

Laparus doris Brassolinae

Ancyluris endaemon Ancyluris aulestes Ancyluris etias Anteros renaldus Calospila cilissa Calospila partholon Calospila emylius Calydna venusta Emesis fatinella Emesis lucinda Emesis ocypore Eurybia dardus Eurybia halimede Eurybia unxia Hyphilaria parthenis Isapis agyrtus Ithomiola floralis Lasaia agesilaus narses Lasaia pseudomeris

Livendula amaris Livendula violacea Lyropteryx appolonia Mesophthalma idotea Mesosemia loruhama Mesosemia latizonata Napaea heteroea Nymphidium mantus Nyphidium nr minuta Nymphidium lysimon Nymphidium balbinus Nymphidium caricae Nymphidium chione Pandemos pasiphae Perophtalma lasus Pirasica tyriotes Rhetus arcius Rhetus periander

Charaxinae

Temenis laothoe Tigridia acesta

Riodinidae Amarynthis meneria

Leucochimona vestalis

Chloreuptychia herseis

Phrrhogyra amphiro Pyrrhogyra crameri

SCIENTIFIC NAME

Celmia celmus

Philaethria dido

Janthecla sista

Caligo eurilochus

Thecla aetolius

Caligo idomeneus idomeneides

Thecla mavors

Caligo illioneus Caligo placidiamus Catoblepia generosa Catoblepia sorannus Catoblepia Xanthus Opsiphanes invirae

45

Sarota chrysus Sarota spicata Setabis gelasine Stalachtis phaedusa Synargis orestessa

Appendix C

Yachana Reserve, Napo

Columbia

Laguna

Stream 1

Caimencocha Laguna

Frontier

Green Inferno

Stream 1 Bloop PC17 Bloop Swamp

Inca Stream 1

Cascada

Road

Cascada Stream

Stream 1

Ficus

Agua Santa

Ridge and Road

N

- Ridge trail

Access Routes

Ridge

Rio Napo

46

GVI Base Camp