Global Vision International, 2010 Report Series No. 002

GVI Ecuador

Rainforest Conservation and Community Development

Phase Report 102 Friday 2nd April – Friday 11th June 2010

GVI Ecuador/Rainforest Conservation and Community Development Expedition Report 102 ` Submitted in whole to Global Vision International Yachana Foundation Museo Ecuatoriano de Ciencias Naturales (MECN)

Produced by Chris Beirne – Field Manager Oliver Burdekin – Field Staff Simon Mitchell –Field Staff Jennifer Sinasac – Field Staff Kristina Spicer – Short-term Intern

and

Bianca Amato Scholar Jacqueline Le Roux Volunteer Benny Mansfield Scholar Chris Morgan Volunteer Kristie Callahan Intern Charlotte Mugarra D’Cruze Volunteer Adam Goldberg Intern Heather Murray Volunteer Laura Jones Intern Benjamin Opeka Volunteer Joe Langridge Intern Sophie Pesquidous Volunteer Thomas Smith Intern Anastasia Porteous Volunteer Edwin Vaca Intern Anneka Sutton Volunteer Rebecca Barnard Volunteer Sloan Sweigart Volunteer Melissa Bobowski Volunteer Jose Grefa Pasante Kyrie Burgoine Volunteer Bexi Jimenez Pasante Melissa Gardiner Volunteer Jairo Cerda Pasante Hugh Greasley Volunteer Cristian Falcones Pasante Jonathan Hamer Volunteer

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 second phase of 2010 from Friday 2nd April to Friday 11th June, GVI has:

 Added 18 new species to the reserve list, all birds; Tiny Hawk (Accipiter superciliosus), Pale-tailed Barbthroat (Threnetes leucurus), White-necked Jacobin (Florisuga mellivora), Tawny-throated Leaftosser (Sclerurus mexicanus), Black-banded Woodcreeper (Dendrocolaptes picumnus), Chestnut-winged Foliage-gleaner (Philydor erythropterum), Plain Xenops (Xenops minutus), Bicoloured Antbird (Gymnopithys leucaspis), Pygmy Antwren (Myrmotherula brachyura), Crowned Slaty Flycatcher (Griseotyrannus aurantioatrocristatus), White-winged Becard (Pachyramphus polychopterus), Golden- crowned Spadebill (Platyrinchus coronatus), White-thighed Swallow (Neochelidon tibialis), Black-faced Dacnis (Dacnis lineata), White-vented Euphonia (Euphonia minuta), Fulvous Shrike-tanager (Lanio fulvus), Masked Tanager (Tangara nigrocincta), Canada Warbler (Wilsonia canadensis).

 Continued assesseing the effect of habitat change in understory bird communities.

 Continued to collect data on the effect of structural habitat change on the amphibian and reptile communities, using pitfall trapping and visual encounter surveys.

 Continued with a project investigating the effects of disturbance from the road upon butterfly communities.

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

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

 Continued giving English classes at Puerto Salazar whenever possible.

 Welcomed four pasantes (work experience students) from the Yachana Technical High School to join the expedition, in order to exchange language skills, knowledge and experience.

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

3

 Continued helping the local organisation Amanecer Campisino with their projects in the local region.

 Participated in two mingas (community projects); one at Puerto Salazar and one at Puerto Rico.  Conducted a stream quality assessment comparing stream health on the reserve and stream health in the nearest community, Puerto Salazar.

4

Contents List of Figures ...... 6 1 Introduction ...... 7 2 Avian Research ...... 10 2.1 Avian Mistnetting ...... 10 2.2 Point Counts ...... 14 3 Mammal Incidentals ...... 20 4 Herpetological Research...... 20 4.1 The Effect of Structural Habitat Change on Herpetofaunal Communities20 5 Butterfly Research ...... 26 5.1 Assessment of Antropogenic Disturbance on Butterfly Communities .....26 6 Benthic Surveying ...... 31 7 Community Development Projects ...... 35 7.1 Colegio Técnico Yachana (Yachana Technical High School) ...... 35 7.2 TEFL at Puerto Rico...... 36 7.3 English Classes at Puerto Salazar ...... 36 8 Future Expedition Aims ...... 37 9 References ...... 38 9.1 General References ...... 38 9.2 Field Use References...... 39 9.3 Avifuanal References ...... 40 9.4 Amphibian References ...... 43 9.5 Butterfly References...... 46 9.6 Benthic References ...... 46 10 Appendices ...... 48 10.1 GVI Species List ...... 48 Class Aves ...... 48 Class Mammalia ...... 53 Class Sauropsida ...... 54 Class Amphibia ...... 55 Class Arachnida ...... 56 Class Insecta ...... 56 10.2 Yachana Reserve Map ...... 61 10.3 Complete Benthic Surveying Results ...... 62

5

List of Figures

Figure 1.1 – Map showing GVI Amazon location in Ecuador

Figure 2.1.1 - Map showing the location of each mist netting site

Figure 2.1.2 - Summary data from Phase 102

Figure 2.1.3 - Summary data for the whole project to date

Figure 2.2.1 - The number of species recorded by each observer

Figure 2.2.2 - Perecentage congruence with staff member versus hours of training.

Figure 4.1.1 - Number of individuals found in pitfalls in Phase 102

Figure 4.1.2 - Number of individuals found on visual encounter surveys in Phase 102

Figure 4.1.3 - Number of individuals found in pitfall traps in total in the project so far

Figure 4.1.4 - Number of individuals found in total for visual encounter surveys in the project so far

Figure 4.1.5 - Distrobution of species diversity at each pitfall trap

Figure 5.1.1 - The new standardised dot codes introduced in week six of Phase 101 and used consistently through Phase 102

Figure 5.1.2 - Individual butterfly numbers as distributed in trap sites along the road, on the trail and in the forest for Frontier and Columbia Trails

Figure 5.1.3 - Species diversity indicated by number of species collected at each of the disturbance levels – road, trail and forest for Frontier and Columbia Trails during Phase 102

6

1 Introduction The Rainforest Conservation and Community Development Expedition operated by Global Vision International (GVI) is located in the Yachana Reserve in the Napo province (0° 50' 45.47"S/ -77° 13' 43.65"W; 300-350m altitude), Amazonian region of Ecuador. The reserve is legally-designated a Bosque Protector (Protected Forest) consisting of approximately 1000 hectares of predominantly primary lowland rainforest, as well as abandoned plantations, grassland, riparian forest, regenerating forest and a road. The Yachana Reserve is owned and managed by the Yachana Foundation. It is surrounded by large areas of pasture land, small active cacao farms and currently un-mapped disturbed primary forest. The road within the Yachana Reserve is a large stone and gravel based road which dissects the primary forest to the north and the abandoned cacao plantations and grassland areas to the south.

GVI Amazon

Rio Napo, Napo Province

Figure 1.1 Map showing GVI Amazon location in Ecuador 7

The Yachana Foundation is dedicated to finding sustainable solutions to the problems facing the Ecuadorian Amazon region. The foundation works with rainforest communities to improve education, develop community-based medical care, establish sustainable agricultural practices, provide environmentally sustainable economic alternatives, and conserve the rainforest. The Yachana Reserve is the result of the foundation’s efforts to purchase blocks of land for the purpose of conservation. The Yachana Foundation has a long-term plan of sustainable management for the reserve according to International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) protected forest guidelines and guidelines laid out by the Ministerio del Ambiente (Ecuadorian Ministry of the Environment). One of GVI’s main roles at the reserve is to provide support where deemed necessary for the development of the management plan. This includes reserve boundary determination, baseline biodiversity assessments, visitor information support, and research centre development.

GVI also works closely with the Yachana Technical High School, a unique educational facility for students from the surrounding region. The high school provides students with meaningful education and practical experience in sustainable agriculture, animal husbandry, conservation, eco-tourism, and small business operations. As part of their experiential learning program, students use the Yachana Reserve and GVI’s presence as a valuable educational tool. As part of their conservation curriculum, the students visit the reserve to receive hands on training in some of GVI’s research methodology, as well as familiarization with ecological systems. On a rotational basis, students spend time at the reserve where they participate in the current research activities, and receive conversational English classes from GVI volunteers.

GVI additionally conducts TEFL classes (Teaching English as a Foreign Language) at the nearby village of Puerto Rico, twice a week. Classes are prepared the day before and last for one hour. Groups of two or three volunteers conduct the classes, covering relevant topics to the local school children. This allows GVI to integrate with the local community, whilst giving volunteers the opportunity to experience firsthand involvement in community development through teaching English. This is also currently laying the foundation to introduce environmental education programmes to the Puerto Rico community in the future.

GVI also works with local research institutions. The Museo Ecuatoriano de Ciencias Naturales, MECN, (Ecuadorian Museum for Natural Sciences) provides technical assistance with field research and project development. The museum is a government research institution which houses information and conducts research on the presence and distribution of floral and faunal species throughout Ecuador. GVI obtains their investigation permit with 8

the support of MECN for the collection of specimens. The data and specimens collected by GVI are being lodged with the MECN in order to make this information nationally and internationally available, and to provide verification of the field data. MECN technicians are continuously invited to the Yachana Reserve to conduct in-field training and education for GVI and Yachana students, as well as explore research opportunities otherwise unavailable.

A major goal for GVI’s research is to shift focus from identifying species in the reserve to collecting data for management concerns and publication. In collaboration with all local and international partners, GVI focuses its research on answering ecological questions related to conservation. With this in mind, several key goals have been identified:

 Cataloguing species diversity in the Yachana Reserve in relation to regional diversity.  Conducting long-term biological and conservation based research projects.  Monitoring of biological integrity within the Yachana Reserve and the immediate surrounding area.  Publication of research findings in primary scientific literature.  Solicitation of visiting researchers and academic collaborators.  Identification of regional or bio-geographic endemic species or sub-species.  Identification of species that are included within IUCN or Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) appendices.  Identification of keystone species important for ecosystem function.  Identification of new species, sub-species, and range extensions.  Identification of charismatic species that could add value in promoting the Yachana Reserve to visitors.

In order to achieve the key goals, volunteers participate in five or ten weeks of each phase and are trained by GVI personnel to conduct research on behalf of the local partners in support of their ongoing work. This report summarises the scientific research and community-based programmes conducted during the ten-week expedition from Friday 2nd April to Friday 11th June 2010, at the Yachana Reserve.

9

2 Avian Research

2.1 Avian Mistnetting Introduction As human populations grow, an understanding of anthropogenic change is essential to understand the conservation of the natural world. Habitat loss is undoubtedly one of the greatest threats facing tropical forest diversity (Hawes et al. 2008), with over half the potential tropical closed-canopy forest, defined as tree crown coverage exceeding 60%, having already been removed and put to other use (Wright 2005). However, there is hope. Despite deforestation reaching alarming levels, 15% of the land deforested in the 1990s has been reclaimed by natural secondary succession (Wright 2005). This large scale expansion of secondary landscapes may have important implications for long-term conservation of wildlife (Faria et al, 2007). The total coverage of non-native and native regeneration will most probably rise further in the near future due to private investment in carbon- sequestration projects in the tropics and increased interest in bio fuels and timber (Barlow et al. 2006).

Several studies have optimistically concluded that this expansion of secondary forest will offset the loss of worldwide biodiversity through destruction of primary habitat (Wright 2005; Wright and Muller–Landau 2006). Stating that, the observed time lags between habitat destruction and species extinctions are of sufficient length to allow secondary forest to mature and regenerate into suitable habitat (Brooks et al; 2002). Dunn (2004) states that; regenerating tropical secondary forests recover sufficiently in 20-40 years to recover faunal species diversity, but support lesser tree diversities than old growth forests. Species compositions of flora and fauna communities often differ between secondary and primary habitats (Blake and Loiselle 2000). The value of regenerating secondary forest will be context and species dependant. There is a growing consensus that there is currently a lack of empirical evidence to support the theories that regenerating disturbed habitats will be sufficient to conserve most forest species in the future (Gardner et al. 2007). Undoubtedly, further research needs to be performed before the true value of secondary regenerating forest can be unequivocally determined.

There is currently a lack of consensus between many studies examining the impacts of habitat change on bird communities. Despite birds being the most studied and understood taxa in the Neotropics, a recent review of literature found that, pre-2008; only 17 studies examined the value of secondary forest for tropical birds (Barlow et al. 2006). The majority of studies conducted to date have concluded that secondary forests can support equivalent or 10

high levels of species richness compared to primary or relatively undisturbed forest (Barlow et al, 2006). Despite these encouraging results, there are a whole host of problems with the existing studies which make a strong conclusion of the value of secondary forest for Neotropical birds impossible to determine (Gardner et al. 2006). For example, several of the studies attribute the high species richness to the close proximity of primary habitat, resulting in primary species being transiently recorded in secondary habitat. Several studies also lacked a good primary forest baseline with which to compare their results (Barlow et al. 2006). This aims to address the problems highlighted by Gardner et al (2007), to compare understory bird communities in the disturbed secondary patches of the Yachana Reserve with the relatively undisturbed patches.

Methods Study Plots Four net locations were established around the reserve; two in relatively disturbed areas, two in relatively undisturbed areas (see Fig. 2.1.1). The net locations were no closer than 500m apart at their nearest point as Barlow and Peres (2004) concluded, based on recaptures of marked individuals, that plots 500m apart were spatially independent. The net locations are restricted to trails within the reserve, as the hilly topography makes establishing nets in other locations impossible without destroying large areas of native vegetation. Plots are random with respect to tree fall gaps, fruiting trees or other factors which may influence capture rates.

Mistnetting Understory mistnetting was used to examine the avifauna at each of the four sites within the reserve. Each site was sampled for 69 to 70 hours between the 12th April 2010 and the 3rd June 2010. Four 12 x 2.5m mist nets with 10-40m spacing (to allow for difficult topography) were established at each site. All nets could be checked within a 10-15 minute periods. Captured birds were then released away from the net locations from an established banding station. Nets were opened between 6.30am and 11.10am for four successive days, allowing extra hours or days to account for periods of persistent wind or heavy rain. Nets were checked every 30 minutes. All captures were placed in a bird bag and returned to the banding station where they were be identified to species, banded, weighed, measured and sexed whenever possible. All birds were banded to identify recaptures, except hummingbirds, which have extremely delicate legs.

11

Figure 2.1.1 Map showing the location of each mist netting site in Yachana Reserve

The pink dots represent the ‘less disturbed’ sites of Laguna and Frontier, whilst the green dots represent the ‘more disturbed’ sites of Cascada and Ficus. The blue circles represent required site separation outlined by Barlow and Perez (2004) to ensure the sites are independent.

Vegetation Mapping Around each mist-netting site six 100m transects were assessed. Each transect started 250m away from the mist-netting center point and ended 150m away from the center point and were spaced evenly to avoid psuedoreplication. The transects were stratified and placed randomly with regard to topography and habitat. Along each transect, five canopy coverage estimations were made by two independent observers and the dominant type of canopy was noted (Absent, Low, Middle and High). All Melostomatacae and Heliconidae within five metres either side of the transect line were counted. All trees >30cm Diameter at Breast Height (DBH) were measured within five metres either side of the transect line. The presence or absence of trees of the genus Theobroma and coffee plants were also noted.

Results Vegetation Profiling On the basis of vegetation mapping results from Phases 094 (October-December 2009) and 101 (January-March 2010) Cascada and Ficus are classified as ‘more disturbed’ and Laguna and Frontier are classified as ‘less disturbed’.

12

Avifaunal Sampling In Phase 102 (Fig. 2.1.2), 89 birds were captured in 279 hours of mist-netting between the dates of 12th April 2010 and 3rd June 2010. Individuals caught at each site varied from eleven individuals to 30. Each site was subjected to between 69 hours and 70 net hours of sampling. The total number of individuals captured in the ‘more disturbed’ areas was 32, whereas the total number of individuals captured in the ‘less disturbed’ areas was 57. The number of species captured at the ‘less disturbed’ sites was also lower than the number captured in the ‘more disturbed’ sites (see Fig.2.1.2). The understory birds caught at each of the ‘more disturbed’ areas represented only ten different bird families, where as birds caught at the ‘less disturbed’ areas each represented by eight and six different bird families. Capture efficiencies, represented by number of individuals per mist net hour, where also higher in the ‘less disturbed’ sites (0.24 and 0.22 indiv.h-1) in comparison to the ‘more disturbed’ sites (0.19 and 0.12 indiv.h-1).

Figure 2.1.2 Summary data from Phase 102 Frontier Laguna Cascada Ficus Total Net Hours 69.40 69.40 70.00 69.40 279.00 Number of Individuals 30 27 21 11 89 Individuals per net hour 0.43 0.39 0.30 0.16 0.32 Total Num. of species 17 15 13 8 29 Species per net hour 0.24 0.22 0.19 0.12 0.10 Total Num. of famillies 5 10 8 6 13 UID Birds 0 0 2 0 2 Recaptures 5 4 4 0 13

Figure 2.1.3 shows summary data for all of the mist netting sessions to date. All locations have been subjected to between 200 and 207 hours of sampling. Frontier appears to be the most diverse site, with 34 species recorded, followed by Laguna with 31. Cascada has produced 24 species where as Ficus has recorded only 15. Frontier and Laguna have recorded many more individuals than Cascada and Ficus too. In terms of families the ‘less disturbed’ sites of Frontier and Laguna support 14, whereas the ‘more disturbed’ Cascada and Ficus have recorded eleven and nine respectively.

Figure 2.1.3 Summary data for the whole project to date Frontier Laguna Cascada Ficus Total Net Hours 200.50 206.50 206.44 204.56 819.20 Number of Individuals 113 88 60 35 296 Individuals per net hour 0.56 0.43 0.29 0.17 0.36 Total Num. of species 34 31 24 15 57 Species per net hour 0.17 0.15 0.12 0.07 0.13 Total Num. of famillies 14 14 11 9 22

13

Discussion

Understory Mist-netting Several differences between the ‘less disturbed’ and ‘more disturbed’ sites have been observed. These include; the number of species caught, the number of individuals caught, the number of families represented and the percentage of individuals from a given family caught at each site. However, the current sample size of 296 birds is prohibitive of any statistically relevant analysis. The differences observed could be due to, but not limited to, genuine differences in understory bird community richness and structure in each area, seasonal variations in bird foraging patterns, different weather conditions, or simply a function of the low number of birds in the data set. The only way to begin to address these potential factors is to increase the size of data set through repeated sampling at each study site until enough data is obtained. Until that point, any conclusions will simply be speculation.

Looking at the summary data from the project as a whole, it would appear that the quality of sites is currently as follows: Frontier>Laguna>Cascada>Ficus. When related to the current vegetation mapping classifications of each site, the data suggests that ‘less disturbed’ sites are able to support more individual, more species and more bird families than ‘more disturbed’ sites. Again, this is currently just a suggestion. More data is needed before firm statistically significant conclusions can be made.

Future Work

Both the understory mist-netting and vegetation mapping will be continued in their current forms as they appear to be functioning effectively.

2.2 Point Counts

Introduction Biodiversity Loss from Tropical Forest Destruction and Degradation Habitat change has been highlighted as one of the most important factors driving global biodiversity loss and is predicted to be the key factor in the loss of terrestrial biodiversity in the coming years (Sala et al, 2000; Tilman et al, 2001). The largest components of this habitat change in terrestrial ecosystems have been the destruction and degradation of tropical forests (Wilson & Peter, 1998).

A complicating factor in assessing the scale of the problem is that there is a current lack of consensus on the extent to which large areas of regenerating and planted forests will be able to offset biodiversity loss from destruction of primary forest areas (Barlow et al, 2007; 14

Daily, 2001; Lindenmayer and Hobbs, 2004; Wright and Muller-Landau, 2006; Brook et al., 2006; Gardner et al., in press). Some authors have argued that degraded and abandoned lands in deforested landscapes are of high importance for the future conservation of tropical forest wildlife (Daily, 2001; Lindenmayer and Franklin, 2002; Wright and Muller-Landau, 2006), whilst others have speculated that this may be over-optimistic given the current lack of knowledge the biodiversity value of secondary forests, (Brook et al., 2006; Gardner et al. in press).

Avian biodiversity in particular has been strongly affected by anthropogenic change in land- use (E.g Sodhi et al, 2004), with the world carrying capacity of overall numbers of individuals also thought to have been greatly reduced due to agriculture-driven changes (Gaston et al 2002). As many as 85% of the threatened bird species are at risk as a result of habitat loss and degradation (Birdlife International, 2000), with the majority of these in tropical ecosystems. Therefore, assessing the avian communities of the Yachana Reserve along a disturbance gradient should provide an insight into the relative avian biodiversity values of forest suffering varying levels of disturbance. Since land-use change is also known to affect many other taxa, findings could also be particularly pertinent if coupled with those from similar projects which have been undertaken on other taxa (reptiles, amphibian and dung beetle assemblages across disturbance gradients are also being investigated on the Yachana Reserve). As a well studied taxonomic group, birds have also been shown in several cases to work as surrogates for assessing overall biodiversity loss (E.g Garson et al, 2002; Rodrigues and Brooks, 2007; Stotz, et. al., 1996; Kati et al, 2003).

Possible Methodologies for Assessing Avian Assemblages Several survey methods are available for surveying avian communities, each with unique limitations and advantages. A mist-netting methodology was initiated on the Yachana Reserve in the latter part of 2009 aimed at elucidating the difference in the avian communities between disturbed secondary relatively undisturbed patches primary forest patches. Mist-netting has the advantage of capturing cryptic, secretive and otherwise difficult to identify species and allowing the marking and recapturing of individuals (Sutherland, 1996). However, mist-netting has limitations in that it requires a large amount of time investment in order to produce sufficient data - only a sub-section of the avian community (undergrowth and sub-canopy species) are recorded (Sutherland, 1996). It was therefore considered that it would be worthwhile to conduct a point count methodology as well as mist-netting work.

15

A point count methodology has the advantage that it detects higher proportions of the species present than normally recorded via mist-netting (Blake & Loiselle, 2001). However, point counts also have several potential limitations and are prone to a variety of biases. Observer differences (Sauer et al. 1994, Kendall et al. 1996), habitat structure (Diehl 1981, McShea and Rappole 1997), meteorological conditions (Mayfield 1981, Robbins 1981), background noise (Simons et al. 2007), time of year (Best 1981, Skirvin 1981) and time of day, (Robbins 1981, Skirvin 1981) are all factors known to affect detection probability. Individual species which sing frequently are also far more likely to be detected than those which sing infrequently, (E.g Farnsworth et al, 2002).

A plethora of literature exists detailing models and methodologies to mitigate biases in detection rates, (E.g Nichols et al, 2000; Farnsworth et al., 2002; Royle & Nichols, 2003; Alledrege et al., 2007; Rosenstock et al., 2002). However, many of these deal with the influence of detection bias on population estimates rather than assessments of the number of different species present, where a solution to the problem is to invest a large number of observer hours. By plotting the cumulative number of species against sampling effort and then determining the effort required for species accumulation curves to reach an asymptote most bias in detection rates is accounted for, (e.g., Scott and Ramsey 1981; Shui & Lee, 2003).

Using Untrained Volunteers to Undertake Avian Point Counts Although some studies have demonstrated the capacity of untrained volunteers (rather than experienced observers) to undertake biological surveys, little has been attempted on avian point counts in tropical forests. Some biological studies have shown training reduces observer variability in visual-based assessments on habitat assessment (Hannaford et al, 1996) and that individuals improve at perceiving biological motion with practice (Grossman, 2004). It has also been shown that whilst only modest amounts of training are needed to remove false-positive results, biases of false-negatives are only removed with much greater observer experience (Tyre et al., 2003).

Recent years have seen a large increase in the number of people undertaking volunteering work in the developing world, as an alternative to study or employment and conservation- based projects are among the most popular (Year Out Group, 2010). Therefore determining the capacity of these volunteers to undertake a point count methodology would have wider applications which are expected to continue to expanding. It is hoped that by applying the correct model to the data collected and teaching volunteers to a high enough level, a viable analysis of the differing avian assemblages can also be conducted. 16

Methods

The Yachana Reserve (Bosque Protector) is located in the Napo Province, Ecuador, at approximately 300m elevation. It is situated in an agricultural and extractive forest matrix. The local topography is somewhat more undulating than neighbouring areas which may have been one of the factors which preserved much of the areas of primary forest prior to its attaining protected status. The presence of both primary and secondary-type forest within a relatively small area provides an opportunity to explore the comparative biodiversity values of primary and secondary forest at a small spatial scale. Though a single site analysis may not be useful to highlight overall trends, the value of each forest type within large mixed forest fragments has not been well-studied.

Twelve point count locations were distributed across forest of varying levels of disturbance. Six were located in each primary-type relatively undisturbed and secondary-type disturbed. The existing trail network was used to for point count locations, since for counts of infinite radius (which normally record birds from 75m away or more), the influence of the forest disturbance of trails is very minimal. Point count sites were located every 200m along a survey transect following similar methodologies (E.g. Lees & Peres, 2006; Edwards et al., 2010). This distance allowed for spatial independence of sites and minimised pseudo- replication of individual birds. At each site staff members and volunteers conducted a daily point count. These began at around 0600 with each count lasting 15 minutes. During this period observers attempted to identify all the species they could see or hear in the area independently. A complete set of twelve point counts was deemed too many to be feasible in a single morning (since bird song had dropped to virtually nothing by as early as 10am on some mornings). Each volunteer conducted six sets of counts, on as many occasions as possible, in order to try and generate a statistically significant and independent set of counts for each individual. The starting point for each set of point counts was rotated every day as was the order of points undertaken.

Results

Collected results took a significant amount of time to fully summarise. Therefore all that is presented here are the results for increasing detection rates of six volunteers. In due course it is expected that a full summary and analysis of results will be presented including the results of all volunteers and investigating the differences in the avian communities in primary and secondary forest.

17

Figure 2.2.1 shows that on an observer’s first survey they show between 0.26-0.45% congruence with the fully trained staff observer. By the fourth survey congruence was between 0.31-0.93%, this suggests a degree of improvement with increasing hours training. The degree of improvement is shown visually on Figure 2.2.2.

Fig. 2.2.2 shows the percentage of congruence with staff member versus hours of training the observer received up to that point. This graph shows the information contained in the previous table as a scatter graph. The mean number of species recorded by each observer (expressed as a percentage of the mean number of species recorded by staff on the same survey), is plotted against the number of cumulative hours training received by each

Figure 2.2.1 The Number of Species Recorded by Each Observer

Survey 1 Survey 2 Survey 3 Survey 4 Survey 5 Survey 6 Adam Goldberg (AG) Mean Number of Species per Point 2.25 2.75 2.33 4.33 4.83 AG Percentage of Staff Mean Recorded 0.45 0.57 0.64 0.93 0.88 Chris Morgan (CM) Mean Number of Species per Point 2.16 2.5 2 2.83 3.6 3.83 CM Percentage of Staff Mean Recorded 0.38 0.54 0.5 0.77 0.78 0.61 Kristina Spicer (KS) Mean Number of Species per Point 3 2.66 3 2.5 KS Percentage of Staff Mean Recorded 0.13 0.20 0.17 0.31 Edwin Vaca (EV) Mean Number of Species per Point 1.5 1 1.5 1.5 EV Percentage of Staff Mean Recorded 0.26 0.25 0.38 0.41 Anastasia Porteous (AP) Mean Number of Species per Point 3 2 2.66 1.6 AP Percentage of Staff Mean Recorded 0.46 0.5 0.67 1 Rebecca Barnard (RB) Mean Number of Species per Point 2.66 1.66 4.5 4.16 RB Percentage of Staff Mean Recorded 0.41 0.42 0.97 0.76

18

Fig. 2.2.2 The percentage of congruence with staff member versus hours of training the observer received up to that point

1.2

Adam Goldberg 1 Chris Morgan Kristina Spicer 0.8 Edwin Vaca

0.6 Anastasia Porteous Rebecca Barnard 0.4 Linear (Adam Goldberg) Linear (Chris Morgan) 0.2 Linear (Kristina Spicer) Linear (Edwin Vaca) 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 Linear (Anastasia Porteous)

Discussion

Of the six observers whose results were analysed (those who went out on the most occasions were chosen), five of these showed a distinct positive correlation between number of hours training and increased species detection rates (See Fig.2.2.2). Only one of this six did not reflect this trend and showed a weak negative correlation or no correlation at all (Kristina Spicer).

The trend found was not analysed for statistical significance. However, it was expected that a full analysis of a greater amount of data from the project would be likely to show at statistically significant correlation between hours training and species detection rates. It was noted that volunteers, even after several hours training, were normally unable to record much more than eighty percent of the detection rates recorded by staff. It was suspected that for secondary forest a very high percentage of all the different species detected were learned by volunteers, but that this was not necessarily reflecting primary forest results, where the greater diversity of species meant that a smaller proportion of the calls were recognised.

These initial results seem likely to be statistically significant which is very promising and suggest that the current methodological is setup correctly in order to produce usable results for a wider study. Therefore the project will continue to run under the same methodology as

19

it did for the previous phase and it is anticipated that additional results will yield more robust results of which a full discussion can take place.

3 Mammal Incidentals

Introduction

GVI continues to document mammal species activity in the reserve predominately through incidental mammal and track sightings. This is confined to incidental recordings due to the low occurrence of conspicuous diurnal mammals. Excessive mammal surveying has proved to not be sufficiently productive.

Methods

All mammal species encountered outside of specific mammal surveys were recorded. Incidental sightings can take place during any of the other survey or project work within the reserve, or during long walks into the forest. At the occurence of each incidence, the time, location, date, species, and any other key characteristics or notes are taken and later entered into a database in camp.

Sightings

During this phase various mammal species were recorded incidentally, whilst groups were participating in other survey work or walks in the forest. Incidental sightings included encounters with the Amazon Red Squirrel (Sciurus sp.), Black Agouti (Dasyprocta fuliginosa), Black-mantled Tamarins (Saguinus nigricollis), Coatis (Nasua nasua), Kinkajou (Potos flavus), Night Monkeys (Aotus sp.), Common Opossum (Didelphis marsupialis), Water Opossum (Chironectes minimus) and Water Rat (Nectomys squamipes), Paca (Agouti paca). Also recorded were various unidentified small rodents found in the amphibian pitfall traps.

4 Herpetological Research

4.1 The Effect of Structural Habitat Change on Herpetofaunal Communities Introduction One of the key drivers of worldwide species loss is habitat change; defined as habitat deforestation, fragmentation and deterioration (Urbina-Cardona, 2008). The rapid rate of forest conversion in the Neotropics has been offset by large-scale expansion of secondary forest, plantation and pastureland (Wright SJ, 2005; Gardner et al. 2007b). Despite the increasingly dominant role of these degraded habitats in the tropical landscape, there is little consensus within the scientific community about the extent of its conservation value 20

(Gardner et al. 2007c, Lo-Man-Hung1, et al. 2008). Wright & Muller-Landau (2006) predict that the future loss of primary forest will be offset by regenerating secondary forest and consequently suggest that the predicted loss of species due to habitat change may be premature. However, there is currently a lack of empirical evidence to support the theory that regenerating forests can fully support native forest species (Gardner 2007c).

Two recent multiple taxa assessments, conducted on the cubraca cacao plantations of Bahia, Brazil (Pardini et al. IN PRESS) and eucalyptus plantations of the Jari forestry project, Brazil (Barlow et al. 2007), found that responses to structural habitat change were taxon specific. Barlow et al. (2007) found that four of the fifteen taxa analysed (trees and lianas, birds, fruit feeding butterflies, and leaf litter amphibians) were found to decrease in species richness with increasing habitat disturbance. However, five taxa (large mammals, epigiec arachnids, lizards, dung beetles and bats) exhibit idiosyncratic responses to habitat change (Barlow et al. 2007). Both studies concluded that responses to structural habitat change will be species specific, not simply taxon specific. Analysis of a generalised taxon response is likely to hide a higher level of species specific disturbance responses which are important when designing conservation strategies (Barlow et al 2007; Pardini et al. 2009). These studies highlight the importance of performing multiple taxa assessments that are species specific relating to the conservation value of secondary and plantation forests.

Problem Statement

The Neotropics are estimated to contain nearly 50% of the worlds amphibians (IUCN, 2007) and 32% of the worlds reptiles (Young et al. 2004), this equates to over 3000 species of each taxon. Within the continental Neotropics, the 17 countries in Central and South America, there are 1685 species of amphibian and 296 species of reptiles considered endangered. Amphibians and reptiles are considered to be the most threatened groups of terrestrial vertebrates (J. Gardner 2007b). There have been many factors implicated in threatening populations of amphibians and reptiles, including habitat loss and change, the virulent Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis pathogen, climate change (Whitfield et al. 2007), ultraviolet-B radiation (Broomhall et al. 2000), and agrochemical contaminants (Bridges et al. 2000).

Current State of Amphibian and Reptile Research

Amphibians and reptiles are important primary, mid-level and top consumers in Neotropical ecosystems; therefore, it is important to understand the responses of these organisms to structural habitat change (Bell et al. 2006). Despite its apparent severity, the amount of research time given to studying the impacts of habitat change on amphibian and reptile 21

populations is relatively low. This is especially true in the Neotropics which, despite an estimated 89% of threatened species being affected by habitat loss, has only been the subject of 10% of the world’s herpetological studies (Gardner et al 2007a). There is a general consensus amongst herpetologists that the effect of structural habitat change on determining amphibian and reptiles and distributions is limited (Pearman, 1997; Krishnamurthy, 2003; Urbina-Cardona, 2006; Gardner et al, 2007b).

A recent global scale review of the state of amphibian and reptile research regarding structural habitat change highlighted several serious deficiencies: i) There is currently a strong study bias away from the Neotropics towards North America and Australia. ii) Published studies report contradictory responses of amphibian and reptile populations to habitat change. iii) There are several common limitations in study methodology and analysis (Gardner et al. 2007a).

Aims of the Research  Assess the ability of secondary forest (abandoned cacao plantation) to preserve leaflitter herpetofaunal richness, distribution and abundance in comparison to primary forest habitat.  Understand the effects of structural habitat change within the Neotropics.  Identify the responses of different herpetofaunal groups/species to structural habitat change.

Methods

In Phase 102, pitfall data was collected for 10 days (16th April to 25th April) and 15 visual encounter surveys were conducted from 15th April to 1st June.

Nocturnal Visual Encounter Surveys

Twelve 75m transects in both the primary and secondary locations were established. Care was taken to space transects sufficiently to avoid psuedoreplication. Transects were marked with coloured transect tape to avoid unnecessary habitat modification. Where possible, the transects were located at least 10m from streams and 100m from forest edges to avoid biases resulting from increases in species richness and abundance, which could result in confusion about the true effect of structural habitat change on amphibian and reptile diversity.

Visual encounter surveys have been shown to be one of the most effective methods for sampling tropical herpetofaunas (Bell et al, 2006). They have been repeatedly shown to 22

yield greater numbers of individuals per effort than other sampling methods in recent publications (Ernst and Rodel, 2004; Donnelly et al 2005) and GVI’s own preliminary investigations. Each transect was searched by six observers (strip width = 6m, duration = 1h 30m).

Pitfall Trapping

Twelve pitfall arrays were also established in both primary and secondary forest. Each array consists of four 25L buckets with 8m long by 50cm high plastic drift fence connecting them in linear shaped design. When open, the pitfalls were checked once a day.

Particular care was taken to ensure that sampling effort is equal for both primary and secondary habitats. This ensures maximum comparability in the resultant data sets.

Any amphibians or reptiles encountered through either method were identified in the field using available literature and released. Any individual which could not be identified was taken back to the GVI base camp for further analysis. A small proportion of the captured individuals, including those that could not be identified, were anaesthetised with Lidocaine and fixed with 10% formalin. All preseserved specimens are stored at the Museo Ecuatoriano de Ciencias Naturales (MECN).

Surveying primary rainforest habitat is a privileged opportunity; however there is the potential to negatively affect the ecosystem by passing infections between sites and species. Good practices are strictly adhered to so as to ensure transmissions are not possible. This is achieved by systematic cleaning of tools, equipment, and sterile bags are changed when handling different individuals. Under no circumstances did amphibians or reptiles come in contact with exposed human skin tissue.

Results Species Encountered in 101 During this phase, 284 identified reptile and amphibian individuals were encountered, comprising 19 species of amphibian and 16 species of reptile.

23

Pitfalls in Phase 102

Figure 4.1.1 Number of individuals found in pitfalls in Phase 102 Amphibians and reptiles Amphibians Reptiles Total 51 38 13

Visual Encounter Surveys in Phase 102

Figure 4.1.2 Number of individuals found on visual encounter surveys in Phase 102 Amphibians and reptiles Amphibians Reptiles Total 136 122 14

(approx 1350 mins survey time with 5/6 searchers)

Species Encountered Overall in the Project So Far:

During the whole project to date, 1666 identified reptile and amphibian individuals have been encountered.

Pitfalls

Figure 4.1.3 Number of individuals found in pitfall traps in total in the project so far Amphibians and Amphibians Reptiles reptiles Total 762 627 135

Visual Encounter Surveys

Figure 4.1.4 Number of individuals found in total for visual encounter surveys in the project so far Amphibians and Amphibians Reptiles reptiles Total 914 841 73 (approx 7110 mins survey time with 5/6 searchers)

24

Figure 4.1.5 Distribution of species diversity at each pitfall trap

Pitfall species diversity was projected onto a map of the Yachana Reserve. The projection shows clearly that there appears to be higher species diversity at the less disturbed ‘primary’ sites as opposed to the ‘secondary’ sites.

Discussion

The amphibian and reptile work continues to provide a wealth of species which are continuing to show that some species are more prevalent than others and there are certainly some differences in the numbers and types of species found within different areas of the reserve. The amphibians Ameerga bilinguis, Pristimantis kichwarum, Pristimantis lanthanites, Bolitoglossa peruvianus (Dwarf-climbing Salamander) and the lizard Lepsoma parietale are still found in greater numbers than other species at various habitat types around the reserve. The diversity projection (Fig. 4.1.5) appears to work well, in future reports this will be expand to inclued all trapping techniques and surveys.

Data collection is now complete. The sites have been surveyed for one full year. In following phases work will continue with new pitfall sites and visual encounter survey transects. As a continuation of this project, the new sites will include riparian habitats in addition to disturbed and less disturbed habitats.

As data collection is now complete further analysis can begin. This may involve multivariate analysis such as principal component analysis in addition to decision tree analysis that may

25

be applied to the development of a model used to determine the types of amphibians and reptiles found in specific habitat types.

5 Butterfly Research

5.1 Assessment of Antropogenic Disturbance on Butterfly Communities Introduction Butterflies are widely regarded as important ecological indicators due to dependence of the larval stage on a specific host plant, combined with adult pollinating roles (Ehrlich and Raven, 1965). Herbivorous species are considered to indicate the diversity and health of their habitats as they may closely reflect patterns of diversity in, as well as disturbances to, plant species (DeVries and Walla, 1999; Sparrow et al. 1993). Due to this, they may be used to predict patterns in other taxonomic groups.

Road systems sharply define and fragment forest ecosystems, resulting in changes to plant species composition and structure from road edges to the surrounding interior (Bennett, 1991). The presence of roads and trails opens up the forest canopy, creating light gaps, modifying plant communities and resources available for other species. Butterfly communities have been shown to be sensitive to environmental variables, such as sunlight, gaps and edges (Ramos, 2000). Sparrow et al. (1994) found 74% more butterfly species along a road transect than in undisturbed forest.

The Yachana Reserve comprises approximately 1000 hectares of predominantly primary lowland rainforest in addition to a matrix of abandoned plantations, grassland, riparian and regenerating forest. A road 15m wide runs through the middle of the reserve, connecting it to the surrounding agricultural landscape. In addition to this, there are a number of trails on either side of the road which are walked regularly by individuals and groups of up to eight volunteers. This presents an excellent opportunity to investigate the effects of disturbance from the road, in addition to making paired comparisons between disturbed trails and nearby undisturbed forest transects. Sparrow et al. (1994) recommend including both disturbed and undisturbed habitat types in monitoring programs investigating butterfly community variation.

Methods

Data collection continued on the established series of 200m transects on the Columbia and Frontier Trails. The same sampling sites located every 50m continued to be monitored. The Columbia and Frontier Trails run roughly perpendicular to the road and receive heavy usage from GVI volunteers, Yachana tourtists and locals. Each sampling site was paired with an 26

undisturbed site located 75m perpendicular to the trail in the forest to assess the impact of the trails on fruit-feeding nymphalid butterfly communities. Trap sites 1-10 were located on Frontier while traps 11-20 were on Columbia. Trap sites 1, 12, 11 and 12 were located alongside the well-used road in proximity to the two trails. The remaining odd-numbered traps were on the trails while the even-numbered traps were in the forest.

As in the previous phases of the study, two baited traps were suspended at each trap site approximately 5 metres apart with the base hanging approximately 1.5 meters above the ground at each sampling site. The traps were baited with mashed, fermented bananas, was prepared following the methods of DeVries and Walla (1999). New bait was added to the traps every three days of sampling. Traps were checked daily in the afternoon and maintained for 14 consecutive days for two sampling periods, 13th-26th April and 19th May-1st June 2010 for a total of 28 days of sampling.

Captured butterflies were identified to species in the field by GVI volunteers and staff. When identification in the field was not possible, photos of the specimen where taken for further study. During previous phases of study butterflies had been marked on the hindwing with non-toxic permanent marker and replaced in the traps in order to measure escape rates.

Although marking in order to measure recapture rates has continued since the initiation of the project, the dot codes used to refer to different traps have been inconsistent, rendering a long period of recapture data unusable. A standardized dot-code was developed in the latter half of Phase 101, and was continuously used through Phase 102 to effectively mark butterflies (Fig.5.1.1). Since Nymphalidae and other detritivorous families can have a life span of three to six months (Florida Museum Of Natural History, 2010; Turner 1971) recapture data should be considered unsafe for the next phase and carefully monitored until no further discrepancies from the new dot codes are noted.

27

Figure 5.1.1 The new standardised dot codes introduced in week six of phase 101 and used consistently through Phase 102.

It is worth noting that although specific, dot-code data is unreliable unless all butterflies caught continued to be marked before release. However, butterflies are not marked if they are too small (ie. smaller than Tigridia acesta), or their wings show dramatic effects of wear (ie. if there are pieces of wing missing) to prevent further damage to the wings. Despite this, it will still be possible to differentiate between recaptures and newly-caught individuals and hence avoid any pseudo-replication.

Light levels, relative humidity and temperature were assessed at each sampling site. However, this was inconsistent in Phase 102; a malfunctioning weather data collector only allowed for three days in the early part of the phase for weather data to be collected. Therefore, weather data pertaining to this survey is incomplete for this sampling set.

Since data collection to explore escape rates and the nymphalid-vegetation relationship had both been undertaken at the outset of the project, it was not necessary to undertake further vegetation mapping or escape experiments during Phase 102.

Results

Overall, 355 individual butterflies of 51 positively-identified species were trapped during two 14-day sampling periods from April–June 2010 (Figure 5.1.2). Of those, 23 individuals are still pending identification. No new species were identified for the Yachana Reserve species list, however those still awaiting identification may produce new reserve species.

28

There were no major differences in the number of individuals found at the three disturbance levels; slightly fewer individuals (105) were collected at the road sites compared to the trail and forest trap sites (Figure 5.1.2). Only slight variations were found otherwise and individuals collected on the trail and forest sites for both Frontier and Columbia Trails were comparable (Figure 5.1.2).

A preliminary analysis of species diversity by assessing the number of species shows that there was no difference in the number of species collected in the road and trail disturbance sites, both with 31 species found at each area over the 28 days sampling period (Figure 5.1.3). However, the preliminary species found at each site differed; Archaeoprepona demophon (Charaxinae: Preponini), Opsiphanes invirae (Satyrinae: Brassolini) and Colobura annulata (Nymphalinae: Nyphalini) were predominantly found at the highly-disturbed road sites. Tigridia acesta (Nymphalinae: Nymphalini), Nessaea hewitsonii (Biblidinae: Epicaliini), Colobura annulata (Nymphalinae: Nymphalini) and Nessaea obrina (Biblidinae: Epicaliini) were predominantly found along semi-disturbed trail sites.

Figure 5.1.2 Individual butterfly numbers as distributed in trap sites along the road, on the trail and in the forest for Frontier and Columbia Trails.

Frontier Columbia Total

Road 65 40 105

Trail 59 63 122

Forest 63 65 128

Total 187 168 355

Less-disturbed forest trap sites which encompassed more surrounding vegetation and higher canopy cover demonstrated a higher species diversity overall with 38 species found collectively at forest trap sites (Figure 5.1.3). Tigridia acesta (Nymphalinae: Nymphalini), Nessaea hewitsonii (Biblidinae: Epicaliini), Archaeoprepona demophon (Charaxinae: Preponini) and Caligo idomeneus (Satyrinae: Brassolini), were predominantly found at in forest traps. Of those 38, 15 species (39%) were only found at forest sites, including Caligo eurilochus (Satyrinae: Brassolini), Cithaerias aurora (Satyrinae: Haeterini) and Pyrrhogyra otoldis (Biblidinae: Epiphilini).

29

Figure 5.1.3 Species diversity indicated by number of species collected at each of the disturbance levels – road, trail and forest for Frontier and Columbia Trails during Phase 102. Total number of species for the three disturbance levels are indicated in the final “Frontier and Columbia” column. Frontier Columbia Frontier and Columbia

Road 23 19 31

Trail 17 26 31

Forest 27 24 38

Discussion

In phase 101, a total of 187 individuals were collected in the traps; 355 individuals in phase 102 accounts for a 53% increase in the number of individuals trapped in the same 28-day sampling period. This increase can be a result of a number of factors. The seasonality of lowland rainforest could affect the number of butterflies. During the months of April and May 2010, there was an increase in the amount of rain compared to the previous phase. Seasonal effects in the feeding and reproductive cycles of butterflies can account for an increase at various times of the year. However, this study will need to be continued for over a year to gain the effects of annual trends in the butterflies feeding and breeding cycles. This increase could also be an effect of the quality of the bait used; however, no deviations were made in the process and fermentation times allotted for the preparation of the bait.

Species diversity was markedly higher at the forest trap sites than at the more disturbed trail and road sites. A higher number of species at forest trap sites, including species found only at forest sites and lacking at trail and road sites, indicates that a majority of Nymphalidae butterflies prefer less-disturbed habitats. These sites have much less human traffic than the other two types of sites; GVI staff and volunteers only enter these site areas when the project is running, and for very short periods of time. Trail sites are used more heavily on a regular basis by GVI personnel and locals, and the road is highly active by vehicle traffic. This indicates that human activity could have a negative effect on the Nymphalidae butterfly communities on the Yachana Reserve. A higher species diversity at the forest trap sites could also be attributed to the preference of light levels that reach these sites, as canopy cover is higher and less light reaches the forest floor, perhaps a preference among many nymphalid species. This may affect the amount of natural food sources for these butterflies, as well as plant diversity and host plants for many species, since plant diversity would be assumed to be higher in the less-disturbed forest away from the trails and road. 30

This project will continue using the same methods as initially set out in the project proposal (Brimble, 2009) next phase to acquire a larger sample size. A new, comprehensive Nymphalidae butterfly identification plates have been developed for more accurate identification on this project, ready for the upcoming Phase 103. Specimens and photos of the unidentified species have been retained for future identification.

6 Benthic Surveying The following is a pilot study into the potential use of BMWP score system for the assessment of stream quality in the Yachana Reserve. The report was composed by a short term intern, Kristina Spicer.

Introduction

The BMWP (Biological Monitoring Working Party) score system was developed in the UK as a quick and easy method to assess water quality, using macroinvertebrates as bioindicators. BMWP score system utilizes the fact that each macroinvertebrate family exhibits different sensitivity to pollutant and their presence or absence defines level of water quality. Each family is therefore assigned a sensitivity value ranging from 1, being the most tolerant to 10, being most sensitive (Stein et.al. 2008). The family level identification makes the index more practical and applicable through out the world (Cao et.al., 1997); therefore, it has been successfully applied in many countries. Czerniawska-Kusza, (2005), investigating macroinvertebrate communities in the lower Nysa Klodzka River catchment in Poland, found strong potential for application of the BMWP system in Poland. Further, in the tropics Azrina et.al. (2006) used BMWP index to assess the water quality of the Langat River in Peninsular Malaysia.

In the tropics, the use of benthic macroinvertebrates for assessment of water quality is yet not well established, due to the fact that knowledge of their ecology and distribution is still incomplete (Stein et.al., 2008). However, the necessity for development of biomonitoring has been recognized and consequently there has been increase in the research and development of biological monitoring and potential use of BMWP score system in the tropics.

In the Dominican Republic, Soldner et.al. (2004) sampled macroinvertebrates within the Yacque del Norte River catchment area to determine whether macroinvertebrate monitoring techniques that are routinely used elsewhere could be successfully applied in the tropics. They found that, since BMWP scores have been developed for British macroinvertebrates, not all families found in the study had designated scores and therefore had to be excluded

31

from the statistical analysis. However, they concluded that this is unlikely to have biased the analysis, as a consistent approach has been used to analyze all sites (Soldner et.al., 2004). Furthermore in the Neotropics, BMWP index has been used and modified for Costa Rica. Stein et.al. (2008) used such adapted BMWP-CR index while testing two different sampling methods in order to determine water quality and possible anthropogenic influences on the river Do Novillos. In Ecuador, this biological monitoring technique is still not widely applied and there has not been attempt to adapt BMWP index to Ecuadorian macroinvertebrate fauna.

In the Yachana Reserve, previously Escolar et.al. (2009) used EPT and Sensitivity Indices to assess the water quality, though their results were contradictory. Therefore, the aims of this study were:  To determine whether BMWP index can be applied in the Yachana Reserve.  To assess and compare water quality of primary rainforest stream and stream near the villages.  To give the account and comparison of diversity of macroinvertebrates in both streams.  To determine whether kick nets are more efficient and reliable than surber nets in sampling benthic macroinvertebrates.

Methods

The study was conducted in Yachana Reserve and village of Puerto Rico. Two sites were selected. The first site was within Stream 1 of the Yachana Reserve in primary forest. The second site selected, Stream 2, was in close proximity of the community of Puerto Rico. Stream 1 has been chosen on the assumption that it is of a good quality since there are no anthropogenic disturbances, while Stream 2 is in close proximity of farmland and is subjected to uncontrolled pesticide influx. The main criteria in selection of two sites were safe and easy access, similar width, presence of riffles and 100 m distance from any road.

At each site three measurements of width of the stream were taken and flow velocity was measured by timing a floating object over a 10m stretch of the river with the stop watch. For the collection of the macroinvertebrates a hand held net was used. At each site four samples were taken by employing kick sampling technique. One observer was disturbing and kicking the substrate for three minutes, while the other was catching dislodged invertebrates in a net held at a short distance downstream. The content of the net was then emptied on the tray where another two observers were sorting and placing macroinvertebrates in the killing jars with 70% ethanol. 32

The macroinvertebrates were sorted in four jars: 1. Coleoptera 2. Trichoptera 3. Ephemeroptera 4. Everything else The two observers that were collecting samples moved 5, 10 and than 15m upstream, to avoid biases from sampling disturbances, so that in total four samples were taken. Collected specimens were taken to the base, where they were identified to family level using Carrera and Fierro (2001) taxonomic key. Precipitation levels on the days of surveying were recorded, then BMWP indices for all sites were calculated.

Results

Stream 1 in the primary forest was sampled on two occasions; on the 25th May 2010 and 26th May 2010 and four samples were taken each day. In total 209 individuals belonging to 19 families were found. The most diverse order was Trichoptera, represented by four different families, followed by Coleoptera and Ephemeroptera both represented by three families. The most abundant order was Coleoptera (69 individuals), followed by Trichoptera (53) and Ephemeroptera (42), (see Appendix 10.3).

Stream 2 was sampled on the 24th May 2010 and 27th May 2010, and four samples in total were taken. 246 individuals, belonging to 17 families were found. The most diverse order was Diptera, represented by four families, followed by Coleoptera (three families), and Ephemeroptera, Odonata, Trichoptera and Oligochaeta, all represented by two families. The most abundant order was Ephemeroptera (51), followed by Coleoptera (48 individuals) and Trichoptera (47), (see Appendix 10.3).

Order Oligochaeta of which Annelidae and Tubificidae were present and family Chironomidae and Simuliidae from order Diptera were only found in stream 2.

Plot 1, at Steam 1 scored 134, while plot 2 scored 119. Mean BMWP index for Stream 1 was 126.5 (see Fig. 6.1.1) which indicates excellent water quality.

Figure 6.1.1: BMWP scores for Stream 1 Samples BMWP Mean BMWP 25/05/10 134 126.5 26/05/10 119

33

Plot 1, at Stream 2 scored 90, while plot 2 scored 92. Mean BMWP index for Stream 2 was 91 (see Fig. 6.1.2), which indicates regular quality, eutrophic, medium polluted stream.

Figure 6.1.2: BMWP scores for Stream 2 Samples BMWP Mean BMWP 24/05/10 90 91 27/05/10 92

Discussion

High BMWP score of Stream 1 is associated with clean, unpolluted conditions in primary forest. On the contrary, lower BMWP score (91) of Stream 2 was expected, as it is in close proximity of farm and certain influx of pesticides can be expected. However, as Stream 2 is not surrounded by vast area of farmland, the medium polluted score fits in with our expectations. Our results correlate with findings of Azrina et.al. (2006). They found that pristine upstream stations of Langat River scored high BMWP indices, while downstream stations which received anthropogenic impact scored lower, indicating lower water quality. Therefore it can be assumed that BMWP scoring system can be used in and around Yachana Reserve. However, even though BMWP index has been reported easily applicable and reliable in assessing water quality in other countries, results obtained from it should be regarded with some caution (Soldner et.al., 2004). Ideally, it should be adapted to the country it is used in. Adaptations should include additions of new families and changes in some scores (Zamora-Munoz et.al., 1995). Since not enough samples were taken, further statistical analysis of the sample would be unreliable and therefore has not been performed.

Although, it is apparent that order Oligochaeta and family Chironomidae and Simuliidae are only found in Stream 2, which correlates with findings of Cao et.al. (1997) which stated that polluted sites, particularly intermediate polluted sites, gain some tolerant species which are very rare or absent at clean sites. Oligochaeta is known to be able to tolerate pollutants and their high density is a good indicator of organic pollution (Azrina et.al., 2006). Similarly, Chironomidae show higher abundance with increase in organic pollution. They appear to be least affected by environmental changes and have efficient recolonization mechanisms (Czerniawska-Kusza, 2005).

In general, organic pollutants such as agricultural pesticides cause severe variations in macroinvertebrate assemblages (Azrina et.al., 2006).

34

The use of adapted kick nets proved to be effective though, as suggested by Escolar et.al. (2009) combination of both surber and kick net should be used to yield best results. Also, macroinvertebrates found in the Stream 1 were significantly smaller than ones found in the Stream 2. As samples were sorted by untrained volunteers, there is a high chance that high number of individuals was overlooked and discarded from samples collected in Stream 1. This potentially resulted in higher number of individuals found in Stream 2.

Furthermore, the identification key used was quite basic and substantial amount of individuals had to be classed as other, which meant their BMWP score was 0. This potentially resulted in limited accuracy of the study. To further help with identification laminated plates from Contreras et.al. (2008) were used, however photos were so shaded that they were not useful for identification of Ephemeroptera, since their gills, which are key identification features could not be distinguished.

Conclusion and Recommendations

BMWP score system could be used in Yachana Reserve, although potentially one adapted to the Neotropics would gather better results. A photograph or diagramatic key with a larger number of individuals should be used in the future. Ideally, a benthic macroinvertebrate key for Yachana Reserve should be constructed and potential bioindicators should be identified. Also, more samples should be taken to allow reliable statistical analysis as well as greater area should be sampled. Sampling should be done using the combination of surber and kick nets.

Sampling should also be carried out for a longer period of time to determine whether seasonal variations of precipitation levels influence macroinvertebrate abundances. Precipitation levels were taken for this study, although since sampling was done over short period of time any sort of analysis would probably be inaccurate. Volunteers should also be given short training before sampling, in order to become familiar with benthic macroinvertebrates, leading to less individuals being overlooked and discarded while sorting.

7 Community Development Projects

7.1 Colegio Técnico Yachana (Yachana Technical High School)

GVI continues to work closely with the Yachana Technical High School. Four current students from the Yachana Technical High School joined the expedition for a period of four weeks each. They participated in all aspects of the expedition, including survey work, camp duty and satellite camps. Conversation sessions for language exchange were also arranged 35

between the students and GVI volunteers and/or staff. The students are of great assistance during field work, sharing their knowledge about local uses for plants as well as helping with the scheduled project work. They share their culture with volunteers and allow a greater insight into their background, teaching traditional basket-weaving, traditional achiote- painting. The benefits to the students are large, as they learn about the realities of conserving and managing a reserve first-hand, along with the techniques used for monitoring different speices. They also get to practise and improve their conversational English language skills for an extended period of time, during the field work, but also around base camp. This sort of shared practical learning experience is invaluable in the developing world and those students who have the opportunity and interest to join GVI for a period of time (whether it be two weeks of longer periods), make great progress in their English language as well as having the opportunity to experience inter-cultural exchange with native English speakers from different parts of the globe. It is hoped that these exchanges will continue in the future as they are beneficial to GVI volunteers, staff and of course to the students themselves.

7.2 TEFL at Puerto Rico

Fifteen English classes were given at Puero Rico this phase. This resulted in 60 ‘volunteer hours’ of teaching, to 22 older students (7-13 years old) and 14 younger students (4-7 years old). The next expedition will see the continuation of these lessons, augmented by an occasional tropical ecology class given at the end of each five weeks. The English lessons and interaction with the Puerto Rico community has had the long term aim of developing and encorporating environmental education for the children at the school. One conservation class was given druring the expedition. They addressed the topics: Why is rainforest Important?, What happens if you cut down the rainforest?, What does GVI do on the Yachana Reserve?

7.3 English Classes at Puerto Salazar

Five informal English classes were given at Puerto Salazar on Saturday afternoons. The feedback from both the children and the volunteers was fantastic. We hope to continue and expand on these classes in the future, however are somewhat tied to time and resources given that Puerto Salazar is approximately 45 minutes walk away from GVI base camp in the Yachana Reserve. GVI is aiming to support the communities around the reserve as much as possible, but also very aware of the limitations due to fluctuations in numbers of volunteers and therefore do not want to over-commit to programmes with the communities when there are high numbers of volunteers on base, to then find that if the numbers drop GVI is unable to maintain the local commitments. For this reason the work with Puerto 36

Salazar will continue on the occasions when it is convenient to both the local community and the GVI Amazon schedule, with a view to continuing the work in the future.

8 Future Expedition Aims . The biodiversity programme will be continued, opportunistically re-surveying sites, and expanding the surveey areas within the rserve.

. Avian research will continue, including point counts and mist netting.

. Herpetological research will continue, repeating pitfall trapping and visual encounter surveys, and incorporating the collection of environmental data (temperature, humidity, air flow and light levels) at each of the surveying sites, so that specific climatic conditions can be compared.

. The butterfly project will continue, examining the effects of road and trail disturbance upon fruit feeding species, in relation to changes in vegetation.

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

. TEFL at Puerto Rico will continue with a defined focus for each ten week block, for each age group and the aim is to encourage students to put their learning into practise and get them conversing in English.

. Simple environmental lessons will be continued at the school in Puerto Rico (to be given in Spanish).

. An expansion of teaching will branch out with weekend lessons at the local community of Puerto Salazar. These lessons will be the basis for a future opportunity of more structured teaching times within this community.

37

9 References

9.1 General References

Allen, T., Ginkbeiner, S.L., and Johnson, D.H., 2004. Comparison of detection rates of breeding marsh birds in passive and playback surveys at Lacreek National Wildlife refuge, South Dakota. Waterbirds 27, 277-281.

Bennett, A. F., 1991. Roads, roadsides and wildlife conservation: A review. In: Saunders, D. A., Hobbs, R. J. (eds.). Nature Conservation 2: The role of corridors. Chipping Norton, NSW, Australia: Surrey Beatty 99-118.

Daszak, P., Berger, L., Cunningham, A.A., Hyatt, A.D., Green, D.E., Speare. R., 1999. Emerging infectious diseases and amphibian population declines. Emerging Infectious Diseases. 5, 735-48.

Ehrlich, P. R., Raven, P. H., 1965. Butterflies and plants: A study in co-evolution. Evolution 18: 586-608.

Gardner T.A., Fitzherbert E.B., Drewes R.C., Howell K.M., Caro T., 2007. Spatial and temporal patterns of abundance and diversity of an east African leaf litter amphibian fauna. Biotropica 39(1):105-113.

Heyer W.R., Donnelly M.A., McDiarmid R.W., Hayek L.A.C., Foster M.S., 1994. Measuring and Monitoring Biological Diversity - Standard Methods for Amphibians.

Kroodsma, D.E., 1984. Songs of the Alder Flycatcher (Empidonax alnorum) and Willow Flycatcher (Empidonax traillii) are innate. Auk 101, 13-24.

Lacher, T., 2004. Tropical Ecology, Assessment, and Monitoring (TEAM) Initiative: Avian Monitoring Protocol version 3. Conservation International, Washington, DC. www.teaminitiative.org.

Menendez-Guerrero P.A., Ron S.R. and Graham C.H., 2006. Predicting the Distribution and Spread of Pathogens to Amphibians. Amphibian Conservation 11:127-128.

Ridgely, R.S., Greenfield, P.J., 2001. The birds of Ecuador. Volume I. Status, Distribution, and Taxonomy. Cornell University Press, New York. Sutherland, W.J., 1996. Ecological census techniques: a handbook. University press, Cambridge.

Weldon, C., du Preez, L.H., Hyatt, A.D., Muller, R., Speare, R., 2004. Origin of the amphibian chytrid fungus. Emerging Infectious Diseases. 10 (Issue 12).

38

9.2 Field Use References

Bartlett, R.D., Bartlett, P., 2003. Reptiles and amphibians of the Amazon. An ecotourist’s guide. University Press of Florida, Gainsville.

Bollino, M., Onore G., 2001. Butterflies & moths of Ecuador. Volume 10a. Familia: Papilionidae. Pontificia Universidad Católica del Ecuador, Quito.

Carrera, C., Fierro, K., 2001. Manual de monitoreo los macroinvertebrados acuáticos. EcoCiencia, Quito.

Carrillo, E., Aldás, S., Altamirano, M., Ayala, F., Cisneros, D. Endara, A., Márquez, C., Morales, M., Nogales, F, Salvador, P., Torres, M.L., Valencia, J., Villamarín, F., Yánez, M., Zárate, P., 2005. Lista roja de los reptiles del Ecuador. Novum Milenium, Quito. de la Torre, S., 2000. Primates of Amazonian Ecuador. SIMBIOE, Quito.

DeVries, P.J., 1997. The butterflies of Costa Rica and their natural history. Volume II: Riodinidae. Princeton University Press, Princeton.

Duellman, W.E., 1978. The biology of an equatorial herpetofauna in Amazonian Ecuador. The University of Kansas, Lawrence.

Eisenberg, J.F., Redford, K.H., 1999. Mammals of the Neotropics: The central Neotropics. Volume 3 Ecuador, Peru, Bolivia, Brazil. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

Emmons, L.H., Feer, F., 1997. Neotropical rainforest mammals. A field guide, second edition. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

Moreno E., M., Silva del P., X., Estévez J., G., Marggraff, I., Marggraff, P., 1997. Mariposas del Ecuador. Occidental Exploration and Production Company, Quito.

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

Ridgely, R.S., Greenfield, P.J., 2001. The birds of Ecuador. Volume I. Status, distribution and taxonomy. Christopher Helm, London.

Ridgely, R.S., Greenfield, P.J., 2001. The birds of Ecuador. Volume II. A field guide. Christopher Helm, London.

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

39

9.3 Avifuanal References

Mist Netting Barlow, Luiz A.M. Mestre, Toby A. Gardner, Carlos A. Peres (2006) The value of primary, secondary and plantation forests for Amazonian birds Biological Conservation 136(2): 212- 23

Blake and Loiselle (2000) Diversity of birds along an elevational gradient in the Cordillera Central, Costa Rica The Auk (3)663-686

Blake and Loiselle (2001) Bird assemblages in second and old growth forests costa rica, persepectives from mist nets and point counts The Auk 118(2): 304-326

Blake and Loiselle (2009) Species Composition of Neotropical Understory Bird Communities: Local Versus Regional Perspectives Based on Capture Data Biotropica 41( 1): 85-94

Brooks, T.M. et al. (2002) Habitat loss and extinction in the hotspots of biodiversity. Conserv. Biol. 16, 909–923

Dunn, R.R. (2004) Recovery of faunal communities during tropical forest regeneration. Conservation. Biology. 18, 302–309

Faria D., Mateus Luı´s Barradas Paciencia, Marianna Dixo, Rudi Ricardo Laps, Julio Baumgarten, (2007) Ferns, frogs, lizards, birds and bats in forest fragments and shade cacao plantations in two contrasting landscapes in the Atlantic forest, Brazil Biodiversity Conservation 16:2335–2357

Gardner, Jos Barlow, Luke W. Parry, and Carlos A. Peres (2007) Predicting the Uncertain Future of Tropical Forest Species in a Data Vacuum BIOTROPICA 39(1): 25–30

Hawes J., Jos Barlow, Toby A. Gardner, Carlos A. Peres (2008) The value of forest strips for understorey birds in an Amazonian plantation landscape Biological Conservation 141(9): 2262-2278

Loiselle and Blake (1992) Population Variation in a Tropical Bird Community BioScience 42 (11): 838-845

Wright S. J. (2005) Tropical forests in a changing Environment TRENDS in Ecology and Evolution 20(10) 553-560

40

Wright and Muller-Landau (2006) The Future of Tropical Forest Species Biotropica 38(3): 287–301

Point Counts

Alldredge, M., W., Simons, T., R., Pollock, K., H., Factors Affecting Aural Detections of Songbirds Ecological Applications, 17:3 (Apr., 2007), pp. 948-955

Barlow J., Mestre, L., Gardner, T., A., Peres, C., A., 2007 The value of primary, secondary and plantation forests for Amazonian birds Biological Conservation, Biological Conservation 136:2 pp 212-231

BirdLife International 2000 Threatened birds of the world. Lynx Edicions/BirdLife International.

Blake, J., G., and Loiselle, B., A., 2001 Bird Assemblages in Old-growth and Second-growth Forests, Costa Rica: Perspectives From Mist-nets and Point Counts The Auk 118(2):304-326

Colwell, R., K., Mao, C., X., Chang, J., Interpolating, Extrapolating and Comparing Incidence- based Species Accumulation Curves Ecology, 85(10), 2004, pp. 2717–2727

Edwards , D., P., Hodgson, J., Hamer, K.,C, , Mitchell, S., L., Ahmad A., H., Cornell S., J., Wilcove D., S., 2010 Wildlife-friendly oil palm plantations fail to protect biodiversity effectively Conservation Letters March 2010

Farnsworth, G., L., Pollock, K., Nichols J., D., Simons T., R., Hine J., E., Sauer J., R., A Removal Model For Estimating Detection Probabilities The Auk 119(2):414–425, 2002

Flather C., H., Fitting Species-Accumulation Functions and Assessing Regional Land Use Impacts on Avian Diversity Journal of Biogeography, 23:2 (Mar., 1996), pp. 155-168

Garson, J., Aggarwal A., and Sahotra S., Birds as surrogates for biodiversity: An analysis of a data set from southern Québec Journal of Biosciences 27:4

Gaston, K., J., Blackburn T., M., Goldewijk, K., K., 2003 Habitat conversion and global avian biodiversity loss, Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 2003 270, 1293-1300

Grossman, E., Blake, R., and Kim C. 2004 Learning to See Biological Motion: Brain Activity Parallels Behavior Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 16:9, pp 1669–1679

Hannaford, M., J., Barbour, M., T., Resh, V., H., 1997 Training reduces observer variability in visual-based assessments of stream habitat Journal of the North American Benthological

41

Society 16: 853-860. Dec 1997.

Johnson, D. H. 1995. Point counts of birds: What are we estimating? Pages 117–123 in Monitoring bird populations by point counts (C. J. Ralph, J. R. Sauer, and S. Droege, Eds.). United States Forest Service General Technical Report PSW-GTR-

K., J., Blackburn T., M., and Goldewijk K., K., 2003 Habitat conversion and global avian biodiversity loss Proceedings Of The Royal Society 270: 1521 1293-1300

Lawton, J., H., Bignell, D., E., Bolton, B., Bleomers G., F., Egleton P., Hammon P., N., Hodda M. Holt R.,

Larsen, T., B., Mawdsley N., A., Stork N., E., Srivastava D., S.,Watt, A.,D., Biodiversity inventory, indicator taxa and effects of habitat modification in tropical forest Nature 931: Jan 1999

Lees A., C., Peres C., A., Rapid avifaunal collapse along the Amazonian deforestation frontier Biological Conservation 133 ( 2006 ) 198 –211

Lees, A., C., and Peres C., A., Gap-crossing movements predict species occupancy in Amazonian forest fragment, Oikos, 118: 2, (2009) , pp. 280-290(11)

Miller J., M., Dixon M., M., Turner M., G.,Response of Avian Communities in Large-River Floodplains to Environmental Variation at Multiple Scales Ecological Applications, 14: 5 (Oct., 2004), pp. 1394-1410

Moore, J., E., Scheiman D., M., Swihart R., K., Field Comparison Of Removal And Modified Double-observer Modelling For Estimating Delectability and Abundance Of Birds The Auk; Jul 2004; 121, 3

Nichols J., D., Hines, J., E., Sauer J., R., Frederick W., Fallon, J., E., Heglund, P., J., 2000 A Double-observer Approach For Estimating Detection Probability And Abundance From Point Counts. The Auk 117(2):393–408, 2000

Rodrigues A., S., L., and Brooks T., M., Shortcuts for Biodiversity Conservation Planning: The Effectiveness of Surrogates Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics Vol. 38: 713-737

Rosenstock, S., S., Anderson D., R. Giesen K., M., Luekerin, T., Carter M., F., Landbird Counting Techniques: Current Practices an Alternative The Auk 119(1):46–53, 2002

42

Royle J., A., Nichols J., D., Abundance From Repeated Presence-Absence Data Or Point Counts Ecology, 84(3), 2003, pp. 777–790 2003 by the Ecological Society of America

Sala O., E., Chapin F., S., et al., 2000 Global Biodiversity Scenarios for the Year 2100 Science 287, 1770 (2000)

Scholes R., J., & Biggs, R., 2005 A biodiversity intactness index Nature 434: March 2005

Shiu H., and Lee P., Assessing Avian Point-count Duration and Sample Size Using Species Accumulation Functions Zoological Studies 42(2): 357-367 (2003)

Simons, T., R., Alldredge M., W., Pollock K., H., Wettroth J., M., Experimental Analysis Of The Audio Detection Process On Avian Point Counts The Auk 124(3):986-999. 2007

Sodhi, N., S., Liow, L., H., and Bazzaz F., A., Avian Extinctions from Tropical and Sub-tropical Forest Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics 38: 713-737

Schlesinger, W., H., Simberloff, D., Swackhamer, D., 2001 Forecasting Agriculturally Driven Global Environmental Change Science 292: 5515, pp. 281 - 284

Vassiliki , K., Devillers, P., Dufrene, M., Legakis, A., Vokou D., Lebrun, P., 2004 Testing the Value of Six Taxanomic Groups as Biodiversity At A Local Scale Cons. Bio.18:3 (July 2004) pp 667 – 675

Wilson E., O., Peter., F., M., Biodiversity Vol. 1 National Academy of Sciences (U.S.), Smithsonian Institution 1998

Year Out Group, 2010 http://www.yearoutgroup.org/Year-Out-Group-Press- Releases/Volunteering-Tops-Poll-of-Gap-Year-Go%E2%80%93Getters-News.htm 2010.

9.4 Amphibian References

J. Barlow, T. A. Gardner, I. S. Araujo, T. C. Avila-Pires, A. B. Bonaldo, J. E. Costa, M. C. Esposito, L. V. Ferreira, J. Hawes, M. I. M. Hernandez, M. S. Hoogmoed, R. N. Leite, N. F. Lo-Man-Hung, J. R. Malcolm, M. B. Martins, L. A. M. Mestre, R. Miranda-Santos, A. L. Nunes-Gutjahr, W. L. Overal, L. Parry, S. L. Peters, M. A. Ribeiro-Junior, M. N. F. da Silva, C. da Silva Motta, and C. A. Peres (2007) Quantifying the biodiversity value of tropical primary, secondary, and plantation forests PNAS vol. 104 no. 47 18555–18560

Beebee, T.J.C., Griffiths, R.A., (2005). The amphibian decline crisis: A watershed for conservation biology? Biological Conservation 125, 271–285.

43

K. E. Bell and M. A. Donnelly (2006) Influence of Forest Fragmentation on Community Structure of Frogs and Lizards in Northeastern Costa Rica Conservation Biology Volume 20, No. 6, 1750–1760

Bridges, C.M., Semlitsch, R.D., (2000). Variation in pesticide tolerance of tadpoles among and within species of Ranidae and patterns of amphibian decline. Conservation Biology 14, 1490–1499.

Broomhall, S.D., Osborne, W.S., Cunningham, R.B. (2000). Comparative effects of ambient ultraviolet-B radiation on two sympatric species of Australian frogs. Conservation Biology 14, 420–427.

Samuel A. Cushman (2006) Effects of habitat loss and fragmentation on amphibians: A review and prospectus Biological Conservation 128; 231 –240

Donnelly, M. A., M. H. Chen, and G. C.Watkins. (2005) Sampling amphibians and reptiles in the Iwokrama Forest ecosystem. Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia 154:55–69.

Toby A. Gardner*, Jos Barlow, Carlos A. Peres (2007a) Paradox, presumption and pitfalls in conservation biology: The importance of habitat change for amphibians and reptiles Biological Conservation 138; 166–179

T. A. Gardner, M.A.Ribeiro-Junior, J. Barlow, T. S. Avila-Pires, M.S. Hoogmeod and C. A. Peres (2007b) The Value of Primary, Secondary, and Plantation Forests for a Neotropical Herpetofauna Conservation Biology Vol 21, 3; 775–787

T. A. Gardner, J. Barlow, L. W. Parry, and C. A. Peres (2007c) Predicting the Uncertain Future of Tropical Forest Species in a Data Vacuum BIOTROPICA 39(1): 25–30 2007

Gibbons, J. W., Scott, D. E., Ryan, T. J., Buhlmann, K. A., Tuberville, T. D., Metts, B. S., Greene, J. L., Mills, T., Leiden, Y., Poppy, S. and C. T. Winne. 2000. The global decline of reptiles, deja-vu amphibians. Bioscience 50: 653–667.

S.V. Krishnamurthy (2003) Amphibian assemblages in undisturbed and disturbed areas of Kudremukh National Park, central Western Ghats, India Environmental Conservation 30 (3): 274–282

P. B. Pearman (1997) Correlates of Amphibian Diversity in an Altered Landscape of Amazonian Ecuador Conservation Biology, Volume 11, No. 5 Pages 1211–1225

44

R. Pardini, D. Faria, G. M. Accacio, R. R. Laps, E. Mariano-Neto, M. L.B. Paciencia, M. Dixo, Julio Baumgarten (2009) The challenge of maintaining Atlantic forest biodiversity: A multi- taxa conservation assessment of specialist and generalist species in an agro-forestry mosaic in southern Bahia Biological Conservation 142; 1170-1182

M. Rödel & R. Ernst (2004) MEASURING AND MONITORING AMPHIBIAN DIVERSITY IN TROPICAL FORESTS. I. AN EVALUATION OF METHODS WITH RECOMMENDATIONS FOR STANDARDIZATION Ecotropica 10: 1–14,

Sala, O.E., Chapin, F.S.I., Armesto, J.J., Berlow, E., Bloomfield, J., Dirzo, R., Huber- Sanwald, E., Huenneke, L.F., Jackson, R.B., Kinzig, A., Leemans, R., Lodge, D.M., Mooney, H.A., Oesterheld, M., Poff, N.L., Sykes, M.T., Walker, B.H., Walker, M., Wall, D.H., (2000). Global biodiversity scenarios for the year 2100. Science 287, 1770–1774.

Stuart, S.N., Chanson, J.S., Cox, N.A., Young, B.E., Rodrigues, A.S.L., Fischman, D.L. and Waller, R.W. (2004). Status and trends of amphibians declines and extinctions worldwide. Science 306: 1783-1786.

J. N. Urbina-Cardona, M. Olivares-Pe´rez, V. H. Reynoso (2006) Herpetofauna diversity and microenvironment correlates across a pasture–edge–interior ecotone in tropical rainforest fragments in the Los Tuxtlas Biosphere Reserve of Veracruz, Mexico Biological Conservation 132; 61–75

J. N. Urbina-Cardona (2008) Conservation of Neotropical Herpetofauna: Research Trends and Challenges Tropical Conservation Science Vol.1(4):359-375

Wright SJ (2005) Tropical forests in a changing environment Trends Ecol Evol 20:553–560.

Whitfield SM, Pierce MSF (2005) Tree buttress microhabitat use by a neotropical leaf-litter herpetofauna. Journal of Herpetology 39:192-198.

Whitfield SM, Bell KE, Philippi T, Sasa M, Bolanos F, Chaves G, Savage JM, DonnellyMA (2007) Amphibian and reptile declines over 35 years at La Selva, Costa Rica Proc Natl Acad Sci 104:8352–8356.

Young, B.E., Stuart, S.N., Chanson, J.S., Cox, N.A., Boucher, T.M., 2004. Disappearing Jewels: The Status of New World Amphibians. Natureserve, Arlington, VA.

45

9.5 Butterfly References

Bennett, A. F., 1991. Roads, roadsides and wildlife conservation: A review. In: Saunders, D. A., Hobbs, R. J. (eds.). Nature Conservation 2: The role of corridors. Chipping Norton, NSW, Australia: Surrey Beatty pp. 99-118. Cottam, G., Curtis, J.T., 1956. The use of distance measures in phytosociological sampling. Ecology 37: 451-460.

DeVries, P. J., Walla, T. R., 1999. Species diversity in spatial and temporal dimensions of fruit-feeding butterflies from two Ecuadorian rainforests. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 68: 333-353.

Ehrlich, P. R., Raven, P. H., 1965. Butterflies and plants: A study in co-evolution. Evolution 18: 586-608.

Ramos, A. F., 2000. Nymphalid butterfly communities in an Amazonian forest fragment. Journal of Research on the Lepidoptera 35:29-41.

Sparrow, H. R., Sisk, T. D., Ehrlich, P. R., Murphy, D. D., 1994. Techniques and guidelines for monitoring neotropical butterflies. Conservation Biology. 8: 800-809.

9.6 Benthic References

Azrina, M.Z., Yap, C.K., Ismail, A.R., Ismail, A. and Tan, S.G. (2006). Anthropogenic impacts on the distribution and biodiversity of benthic macroinvertebrates and water quality of the Langat River, Peninsular Malaysia, Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety, 64, 337-347

Cao, Y., Bark, A.W. and Williams, P.(1997). Analysing benthic macroinvertebrate community changes along a pollution gradient: A framework for the development of biotic indices, Wat. Res., 31, 884-892

Carrera, C. and Fierro (2001). Guia de identification de los macroinvertebrates acuaticos mas comunes del tropico americano, Ecociencia, Quito, Ecuador

Contreras, J., Roldan, G., Arango, A. and Alvarez, L.F. (2008). `Evalucion de la calidad del agua de las microcuencas La Laucha, La Lejia y La Rastrojera, utilizando los macroinvertebrados como bioindicadores, Municipio de Durania, Depertamento Norte de Santander, Colombia’, Rev. Acad. Colomb. Cienc., 32, 171-193

Czerniawska-Kusza, I. (2005). Comparing modified biological monitoring working party score system and several biological indices based on macroinvertebrates for water quality assessment, Limnologica, 35, 169-176 46

Escolar, J., Mercer, A. and Urpeth, H. (2009). Assessment of Global Vision International’s impact on water quality in the Bosque Protector Yachana- Preliminary report, GVI Amazon, Ecuador

Solder, M., Stephen, I., Ramos, L., Angus, N., Wells, C., Grosso, A. and Crane, M. (2004). Relationship between macroinvertebrate fauna and environmental variables in small streams of the Dominican Republic, Water Research, 38, 863-874

Stein, H., Springer, M. and Kohlmann, B. (2008) Comparison of two sampling methods for biomonitoring using macroinvertebrates in the Dos Novillos River, Costa Rica, Ecological Engineering, 34, 267-275

Zamora-Munoz, C., Sainz-Cantero, C.E., Sanchez-Ortega, A. and Albina-Tercedor, J., (1995). Are biological indices BMWP and ASPT and their significance regarding water quality seasonally dependent? Factors explaining their variations, Wat.Res., 29, 285-290

47

Accipiter superscilious Tiny Hawk** 10 Appendices Spizaetus ornatus Ornate Hawk-eagle 10.1 GVI Species List Buteo magnirostris Roadside Hawk June 2010 Buteo polyosoma Variable Hawk ** New additions to the Yachana Elanoides forficatus Swallow-tailed Kite Species List in Phase 102 Harpagus bidentatus Double-toothed Kite

Ictinia plumbea Plumbeous Kite Class Aves Leptodon cayanensis Gray-headed Kite

Class Aves Leucopternis melanops Black-faced Hawk

Tinamiformes Leucopternis albicollis White Hawk

Tinamidae Tinamous Pandion haliaetus Osprey

Crypturellus bartletti Bartlett's Tinamou

Crypturellus cinereus Cinereous Tinamou Falconidae Falcons and Caracaras

Crypturellus soui Little Tinamou Daptrius ater Black Caracara

Crypturellus undulatus Undulated Tinamou Falco rufigularis Bat Falcon

Crypturellus variegatus Variegated Tinamou Ibycter americanus Red-throated Caracara

Tinamus major Great Tinamou Herpetotheres cachinnans Laughing Falcon

Micrastur gilvicollis Lined Forest-Falcon

Ciconiformes Micrastur semitorquatus Collared Forest-Falcon

Ardeidae Herons, Bitterns and Egrets Milvago chimachima Yellow-headed Caracara

Ardea cocoi Cocoi Heron

Bubulcus ibis Cattle Egret Galliformes

Butorides striatus Striated Heron Curassows, Guans, and Cracidae Chachalacas

Egretta caerulea Little Blue Heron Nothocrax urumutum Nocturnal Curassow

Egretta thula Snowy Egret Ortalis guttata Speckled Chachalaca

Tigrisoma lineatum Rufescent Tiger-Heron Penelope jacquacu Spix's Guan

Cathartidae American Vultures Odontophoridae New World Quails

Cathartes aura Turkey Vulture Odontophorus gujanensis Marbled Wood-Quail

Cathartes melambrotus Greater Yellow-headed Vulture

Coragyps atractus Black Vulture Charadriiformes

Sarcoramphus papa King Vulture Sandpipers, Snipes and Scolo pacidae Phalaropes

Actitis macularia Spotted Sandpiper

Falconiformes Tringa solitaria Solitary Sandpiper

Accipitridae Kites, Eagles, Hawks etc

48

Recurvirostridae Plovers and Lapwings

Hoploxypterus cayanus Pied Plover Opisthocomidae Hoatzin

Opisthocomus hoazin Hoatzin

Gruiformes

Rallidae Rails, Gallinules, and Coots Strigiformes

Anurolimnatus castaneiceps Chestnut-headed Crake Strigidae Typical Owls

Aramides cajanea Gray-necked Wood-Rail Glaucidium brasilianum Ferruginous Pygmy-Owl

Lophostrix cristata Crested owl

Columbiformes Otus choliba Tropical Screech-Owl

Columbidae Pigeons and Doves Otus watsonii Tawny-bellied Screech-owl

Claravis pretiosa Blue Ground-Dove Pulsatrix perspicillata Spectacled owl

Columba plumbea Plumbeous Pigeon

Geotrygon montana Ruddy Quail-Dove Caprimulgiformes

Leptotila rufaxilla Gray-fronted Dove Nyctibiidae Potoos

Nyctibius aethereus Long-tailed Potoo

Psittaciformes Nyctibius grandis Great Potoo

Psittacidae Parrots and Macaws Nyctibius griseus Common Potoo

Amazona farinosa Mealy Amazon

Amazona ochrocephala Yellow-crowned Amazon Caprimulgidae Nightjars and Nighthawks

Ara severa Chestnut-fronted Macaw Nyctidromus albicollis Pauraque

Nyctiphrynus ocellatus Ocellated Poorwill

Psittacidae Cont. Parrots and Macaws

Aratinga leucophthalmus White-eyed Parakeet Apodiformes

Aratinga weddellii Dusky-headed Parakeet Apodidae Swifts

Pionites melanocephala Black-headed Parrot Chaetura cinereiventris Grey-rumped Swift

Pionopsitta barrabandi Orange-cheeked Parrot Streptoprocne zonaris White-collared Swift

Pionus menstruus Blue-headed Parrot

Pyrrhura melanura Maroon-tailed Parakeet Trochilidae Hummingbirds

Heliothryx aurita Black-eared Fairy

Cuculiformes Amazilia franciae cyanocollis Andean Emerald Hummingbird

Cuculidae Cuckoos and Anis Amazilia fimbriata Glittering-throated Emerald

Crotophaga ani Smooth-billed Ani Anthracothorax nigricollis Black-throated Mango

Crotophaga major Greater Ani Campylopterus largipennis Grey-breasted Sabrewing

Piaya cayana Squirrel Cockoo Eutoxeres condamini Buff-tailed Sicklebill

Piaya melanogaster Black-bellied Cuckoo Glaucis hirsuta Rufous -breasted Hermit 49

Thrrenetes niger Pale-tailed Barbthroat**

Phaethornis bourcieri Straight-billed Hermit Picidae Woodpeckers and Piculets

Phaethornis hispidus White-bearded Hermit Campephilus melanoleucos Crimson-crested Woodpecker

Phaethornis malaris Great-billed Hermit Campephilus rubricollis Red-necked Woodpecker

Thalurania furcata Fork-tailed Woodnymph Celeus elegans Chestnut Woodpecker

Floriduga mellivora White-necked Jacobin** Celeus flavus Cream-coloured Woodpecker

Heliodoxa aurescens Gould's Jewelfront Celeus grammicus Scale-breasted Woodpecker

Chrysoptilus punctigula Spot-breasted Woodpecker

Piciformes Dryocopus lineatus Lineated Woodpecker

Galibulidae Jacamars Melanerpes cruentatus Yellow-tufted Woodpecker

Jacamerops aureus Great Jacamar Picumnus lafresnayi Lafresnaye's piculet

Galbula albirostris Yellow-billed Jacamar Veniliornis passerinus Little Woodpecker

Bucconidae Puffbirds Dendrocolaptidae Woodcreepers

Chelidoptera tenebrosa Swallow-winged Puffbird Dendrocolaptes picumnus Black-banded Woodcreeper**

Bucco macrodactylus Chestnut-capped Puffbird Dendrexetastes rufigula Cinnamon-throated Woodcreeper

Malacoptila fusca White-chested Puffbird Dendrocincla fuliginosa Plain Brown Woodcreeper

Monasa flavirostris Yellow-billed Nunbird

Monasa morphoeus White-fronted Nunbird Glyphorynchus spirurus Wedge-billed Woodcreeper

Monasa nigrifrons Black-fronted Nunbird Lepidocolaptes albolineatus Lineated Woodcreeper

Notharchus macrorynchos White-necked Puffbird Xiphorhynchus guttatus Buff-throated Woodcreeper

Xiphorhynchus ocellatus Ocellated Woodcreeper

Xiphorhynchus picus Straight-billed Woodcreeper Capitonidae New World Barbets

Capita aurovirens Scarlet-crowned Barbet Furnariidae Ovenbirds

Capita auratus Gilded Barbet Ancistrops strigilatus Chestnut-winged Hookbill

Phylidor erythropterum Chestnut-winged Foligae-gleaner** Eubucco bourcierii Lemon-throated Barbet

Automolus rubiginosus Ruddy Foliage-gleaner

Philydor pyrrhodes Cinammon-rumped Foliage-gleaner

Xenops minutus Plain Xenops** Ramphastidae Toucans Sc elerurus caudacutus Black-tailed Leaftosser

Pteroglossus azara Ivory-billed Aracari Scelerurus mexicanus Tawny-throated Leaftosser**

Pteroglossus castanotis Chestnut-eared Aracari Scelerurus rufigularis Short-billed Leaftosser**

Trogoniformes Pteroglossus inscriptus Lettered Aracari Trogonidae Trogons and Quetzals Pteroglossus pluricinctus Many-banded Aracari Pharomachrus pavoninus Pavonine Quetzal

Ramphastos vitellinus Channel-billed Toucan Trogon melanurus Black-tailed Trogon

Trogon viridis Amazonian White-tailed Trogon Ramphastos tucanus White-throated Toucan Trogon collaris Collared Trogon Selenidera reinwardtii Golden-collared Toucanet 50

Attila spadiceus Bright-rumped Attila Trogon rufus Black-throated Trogon Colonia colonus Long-tailed Tyrant Trogon violaceus Amazonian Violaceous Trogon

Conopias cinchoneti Lemon-browed Flycatcher Trogon curucui Blue-crowned Trogon

Conopias parva Yellow-throated Flycatcher

Contopus virens Eastern Wood-Pewee Coraciiformes

Hemitriccus zosterops Alcedinidae Kingfishers White-eyed Tody-tyrant

Legatus leucophaius Piratic Flycatcher Chloroceryle amazona Amazon Kingfisher

Griseotyrannus aurantioatrocristatus Crowned Slaty Flycatcher** Chloroceryle americana Green Kingfisher

Leptopogon amaurocephalus Sepia-capped Flycatcher Chloroceryle inda Green and Rufous Kingfisher

Lipaugus vociferans Screaming Piha Megaceryle torquata Ringed Kingfisher

Megarynchus piangu Boat-billed Flycatcher

Mionectes oleagineus Ochre-bellied Flycatcher Momotidae Motmots

Myiarchus ferox Short-crested Flycatcher Baryphthengus martii Rufous Motmot

Myiarchus tuberculifer Dusky-capped Flycatcher Electron platyrhynchum Broad-billed Motmot

Myiobius barbatus Whiskered Flycatcher Momotus momota Blue-crowned Motmot

Myiodynastes luteiventris Sulphur-bellied Flycatcher

Myiodynastes maculatus Streaked Flycatcher Cotingidae Cotinga

Myiozetetes granadensis Gray-capped Flycatcher Cotinga cayana Spangled Cotinga

Myiozetetes luteiventris Dusky-chested Flycatcher Cotinga maynana Plum-throated Cotinga

Myiozetetes similis Social Flycatcher Gynnoderus foetidus Bare-necked Fruitcrow

Ochthornis littoralis Drab Water-Tyrant Iodopleura isabellae White-browed Purpletuft

Pachyramphus marginatus Black-capped Becard Querula purpurata Purple throated Fruitcrow

Pachyramphus viridis White-winged Becard**

Pitangus sulphuratus Great Kiskadee Pipridae Manakins

Rhynchocyclus olivaceus Olivaceous Flatbill Chiroxiphia pareola Blue-backed Manakin

Rhytipterna simplex Grayish Mouner Chloropipo holochlora Green Manakin

Tityra inquisitor Black-crowned Tityra Dixiphia pipra White-crowned Manakin

Tityra semifasciata Masked Tityra Lepidothrix coronata Blue-crowned Manakin

Tityra cayana Black-tailed Tityra Machaeropterus regulus Striped Manakin

Terenotriccus erythrurus Ruddy-tailed Flycatcher Manacus manacus White-bearded Manakin

Todirostrum chrysocrotaphum Pipra erythrocephala Golden-headed Manakin Yellow-browed Tody-Flycatcher

Tolmomyias poliocephalus Gray-crowned Flatbill Tyranneutes stolzmanni Dwarf Tyrant Manakin

Tolmomyias viridiceps Olive-faced Flatbill

Tyrannidae Tyrant Flycatchers Tyrannulus elatus Yellow-crowned Tyrannulet

Platyrinchus coronatus Golden-crowned Spadebill** Tyrannus melancholicus Tropical Kingbird 51

Tyrannus savana Fork-tailed Flycatcher Dendroica fusca Blackburnian Warbler

Tyrannus tyrannus Eastern Kingbird Dendroica striata Blackpoll Warbler

Zimmerius gracilipes Slender-footed Tyrannulet Thraupidae Tanagers Chlorophanes spiza Green Honeycreeper Corvidae Crows, Jays, and Magpies Cissopis leveriana Magpie Tanager Cyanocorax violaceus Violaceous Jay

Cyanerpes caeruleus Purple Honeycreeper

Dacnis flaviventer Yellow-bellied Dacnis Vireonidae Vireos Dacnis lineata Black-faced Dacnis**

Vireo olivaceus Red-eyed Vireo Euphonia laniirostris Thick-billed Euphonia

Euphonia rufiventris Rufous-bellied Euphonia

Turdidae Thrushes Euponia xanthogaster Orange-bellied Euphonia Catharus ustulatus Swainson's Thrush Euphonia chrysopasta White-lored Euphonia Turdus albicollis White-necked Thrush

Euphonia minuta White-vented Euphonia** Turdus lawrencii Lawrence's Thrush

Habia rubica Red-crowned Ant-Tanager

Hemithraupis flavicollis Yellow-backed Tanager Hirundinidae Swallows and Martins

Piranaga olivacea Scarlet Tanager Atticora fasciata White-banded Swallow

Piranaga rubra Summer Tanager Stelgidopteryx ruficollis Southern rough-winged swallow

Ramphocelus carbo Silver-beaked Tanager Neochelidon tibialis White-thighed Swallow**

Ramphocelus nigrogularis Masked Crimson Tanager Tachycineta albiventer White-winged Swallow

Tachyphonus cristatus Flame-crested Tanager

Tachyphonus surinamus Fulvous-crested Tanager Troglodytidae Wrens

Lanio fulvus Fulvous Shrike-tanager Campylorhynchus turdinus Thrush-like Wren

Tangara callophrys Opal-crowned Tanager Donacobius atricapillus Black-capped Donacobius

Tangara chilensis Paradise Tanager Henicorhina leucosticta White-breasted Wood-wren

Tangara nigrocinta Masked Tanager** Microcerculus marginatus Southern Nightingale-Wren

Tangara mexicana Turquoise Tanager Thryothorus coraya Coraya Wren

Tangara schrankii Green-and-gold Tanager

Tangara xanthogastra Yellow-bellied Tanager Polioptilidae Gnatcatchers and Gnatwrens

Tersina viridis Swallow Tanager Microbates cinereiventris Tawny-faced Gnatwren

Thraupis episcopus Blue-gray Tanager

Thraupis palmarum Palm Tanager Parulidae New World Warblers

Wilsonia canadensis Canada Warbler** Thamnophilidae Typical Antbirds Dendroica aestiva Yellow Warbler Cercomacra cinerascens Gray Antbird Basileuterus fulvicauda Buff-rumped Warbler Chamaeza nobilis Striated Antthrush

52

Dichrozona cincta Banded Antbird

Formicarius analis Black-faced Antthrush Fringillidae Cardueline Finches

Frederickena unduligera Undulated Antshrike Carduelis psaltria Lesser Goldfinch

Hersilochmus dugandi Dugand's Antwren American Orioles, and Icteridae Blackbirds

Hylophlax naevia Spot-backed Antbird Cacicus cela Yellow-rumped Cacique

Cacicus solitaries Solitary Cacique Hylophylax poecilinota Scale-backed Antbird

Clypicterus oseryi Casqued Oropendola Hypocnemis cantator Warbling Antbird Gymnomystax mexicanus Oriole Blackbird

Gymnopithys leucapis Bicoloured Antibird** Icterus croconotus Orange-backed Troupial

Molothrus oryzivorous Giant Cowbird Hypocnemis hypoxantha Yellow-browed Antbird Psarocolius angustifrons Russet-backed Oropendola

Megastictus margaritatus Pearly Antshrike Psarocolius decumanas Crested Oropendola

Psarocolius viridis Green Oropendola Myrmeciza hyperythra Plumbeous Antbird

Myrmeciza immaculata Sooty Antbird Class Mammalia

Myrmeciza melanoceps White-shouldered Antbird Marsupialia

Myrmornis torquata Wing-banded Antbird Didelphidae Opossums

Caluromys lanatus Western woolly opposum Myrmothera campanisona Thrush-like Antpitta Chironectes minimus Water opossum

Myrmotherula axillaris White-flanked Antwren Didelphis marsupialis Common opossum

Marmosa lepida Little rufous mouse opossum Myrmotherula hauxwelli Plain-throated Antwren Long-furred woolly mouse Micoureus demerarae opossum Myrmotherula longipennis Long-winged Antwren Philander sp. Four-eyed opossum Myrmotherula obscura Short-billed Antwren

Myrmotherula ornata Ornate Antwren Xenarthra Mymotherula brahyrura Pygmy Antwren** Megalonychidae Phlegopsis erythroptera Reddish-winged Bare-eye Subfamily Choloepinae Two-toed sloths Phlegopsis nigromaculata Black-spotted Bare-eye Choloepus diadactylus Southern two-toed sloth Pithys albifrons White-plumbed Antbird

Schistocichla leucostigma Spot-winged Antbird Dasypodidae Armadillos Thamnomanes ardesiacus Dusky-throated Antshrike Cabassous unicinctus Southern naked-tailed armadillo Thamnophilus murinus Mouse-colored Antshrike Dasypus novemcinctus Nine-banded armadillo Thamnophilus schistaceus Plain-winged Antshrike

Cardinalidae Saltators, Grosbeaks etc Chiroptera Cyanocompsa cyanoides Blue-black Grosbeak

Saltator grossus Slate-colored Grosbeak Carollinae Short-tailed Fruit bats

Saltator maximus Buff-throated Saltator Carollia brevicauda

Emberizidae Emberizine Finches Carollia castanea

Ammodramus aurifrons Yellow-browed Sparrow Carollia perspicullatus Short-tailed fruit bat Oryzoborus angloensis Lesser Seed-Finch Rhinophylla pumilio Little fruit bat

53

Mustelidae Weasel

Eira barbara Tayra Desmodontinae Vampire bats Lontra longicaudis Neotropical otter

Desmodus rotundus Common vampire bat

Felidae Cat

Herpailurus yaguarundi Jaguarundi Emballonuridae Sac-winged/Sheath-tailed Bats Leopardus pardalis Ocelot Saccopteryx bilineata White-lined bat Puma concolor Puma

Glossophaginae Long tongued bats Artidactyla Peccaries and Deer Glossophaga soricina Long tongued bat Mazama americana Red brocket deer Lonchophylla robusta Spear-nosed long-tongued bat Tayassu tajacu Collared peccary

Stenodermatidae Neotropical Fruit bats Rodentia Rodents Artibeus jamaicensis Large fruit-eating bat Echimyidae Artibeus lituratus Large fruit bat Dactylomys dactylinus Amazon bamboo rat Artibeus obscurus Large fruit bat Nectomys squamipes Water rat Artibeus planirostus Large fruit bat Proechimys semispinosus Spiny rat Chiroderma villosum Big-eyed bat

Sturrnia lilium Hairy-legged bat Sciuridae Squirrels Sturnria oporaphilum Yellow shouldered fruit bat Sciurus sp. Amazon red squirrel Uroderma pilobatum Tent-making bat Sciurillus pusillus Neotropical pygmy squirrel Vampyrodes caraccioli Great Stripe-faced bat

Large Cavylike Rodents Phyllostominae Spear-nosed Bats Agouti paca Paca Macrophyllum macrophyllum Long-legged bat Coendou bicolor Bi-color spined porcupine Mimon crenulatum Hairy-nosed bat Dasyprocta fuliginosa Black agouti Phyllostomus hastatus Spear-nosed bat Hydrochaeirs hydrochaeirs Capybara

Myoprocta pratti Green acouchy Vespertilionidae Vespertilionid Bats

Myotis nigricans Little brown bat Cl ass Sauropsida

Primates Monkeys Lizards

Callitrichidae Gekkonidae

Saguinus nigricollis Black-mantle tamarin Gonatodes concinnatus Collared forest gecko

Gonatodes humeralis Bridled forest gecko

Cebidae Pseudogonatodes guianensis Amazon pygmy gecko

Allouatta seniculus Red howler monkey

Aotus sp. Night monkey Gymnophthalmidae

Cebus albifrons White-fronted capuchin Alopoglossus striventris Black-bellied forest lizard

Arthrosaura reticulata reticulata Reticulated creek lizard

Carnivora Carnivores Cercosaurra argulus

Procyonidae Raccoon Cercosaura ocellata

Nasua nasua South american coati Leposoma parietale Common forest lizard

Potos flavus Kinkajou Neusticurus ecpleopus Common streamside lizard

Prionodactylus argulus Elegant-eyed lizard

54

Prionodactylus oshaughnessyi White-striped eyed lizard Oxyrhopus formosus Yellow-headed calico snake

Oxyrhopus melanogenys Black-headed calico snake

Iguanas Oxyrhopus petola digitalus Banded calico snake

Hoplocercidae Pseustes poecilonotus polylepis Common bird snake

Enyalioides laticeps Amazon forest dragon Pseustes sulphureus Giant bird snake

Sphlophus compressus Red-vine snake

Spilotes pullatus Tiger rat snake Polychrotidae Tantilla melanocephala

melanocephala Anolis fuscoauratus Slender anole Black-headed snake

Xenedon rabdocephalus Anolis nitens scypheus Yellow-tongued forest anole Common false viper

Xenedon severos Anolis ortonii Amazon bark anole Giant false viper

Xenoxybelis argenteus Anolis punctata Amazon green anole Green-striped vine snake

Anolis trachyderma Common forest anole

Viperidae

Bothriopsis taeniata Scincidae Speckeled forest pit viper

Bothriopsis bilineata bilineata Mabuya nigropunctata Black-spotted skink Western Striped Forest Pit Viper

Bothrops atrox Fer-de-lance

Amazonian Hog-Nosed Tropiduridae Bothrops hyoprora Lancehead

Tropidurus (Plica) plica Collared tree runner Lachesis muta muta Amazon Bushmaster

Tropidurus (plica) umbra ochrocollaris Olive tree runner

Boidae

Teiidae Boa constrictor constrictor Red-tailed boa

Kentropyx pelviceps Forest whiptail Boa constrictor imperator Common boa constrictor

Tupinambis teguixin Golden tegu Corallus enydris enydris Amazon tree boa

Epicrates cenchria gaigei Peruvian rainbow boa

Snakes

Colubridae Elapidae

Atractus elaps Earth snake sp3 Micurus hemprichii ortonii Orange-ringed coral snake

Atractus major Earth snake Micrurus langsdorfii Langsdorffs coral snake

Atractus occiptoalbus Earth snake sp2 Micrurus lemniscatus Eastern ribbon coral snake

Chironius fuscus Olive whipsnake Micrurus spixii spixxi Central amazon coral snake

Chironius scurruls Rusty whipsnake Micurus surinamensis surinamensis Aquatic coral snake

Clelia clelia clelia Musarana

Dendriphidion dendrophis Tawny forest racer Crocodilians

Dipsas catesbyi Ornate snail-eating snake Alligatoridae

Dipsas indica Big-headed snail-eating snake Paleosuchus trigonatus Smooth-fronted caiman

Drepanoides anomalus Amazon egg-eating snake Class Amphibia Drymoluber dichrous Common glossy racer Banded south american water Helicops angulatus snake Caecilians

Helicops leopardinus Spotted water snake Typhlonectidae

Imantodes cenchoa Common blunt-headed tree snake Caecilia aff. tentaculata

Imantodes lentiferus Amazon blunt-headed tree snake

Leptodeira annulata annulata Common cat-eyed snake Plethodontidae Lungless Salamanders

Leptophis cupreus Brown parrot snake Bolitoglossa peruviana Dwarf climbing salamander

Liophis miliaris chrysostomus White-lipped swamp snake

Liophis reginae Common swamp snake Bufonidae Toads

55

Rhinella marina Cane Toad Phyllomedusa tarsius Warty Monkey Frog

Rhinella complex margaritifer Crested Forest Toad Phyllomedusa tomopterna Barred Monkey Frog

Rhinella dapsilis Sharp-nosed Toad Phyllomedusa vaillanti White-lined monkey Tree Frog

Scinax garbei Fringe lipped Tree Frog

Dendrophryniscus Leaf Toads Scinax rubra Two-striped Tree Frog

Dendrophryniscus minutus Orange bellied leaf toad Trachycephalus venulosus Common milk Tree Frog

Centrolenidae Glass Frogs Microhylidae Sheep Frogs

Centrolene sp. undescribed Glass Frog Chiasmocleis bassleri Bassler's Sheep Frog

Cochranella anetarsia Glass Frog

Cochranella midas Glass Frog Leptodactylidae Rain Frogs

Cochranella resplendens Glass Frog Edalorhina perezi Eyelashed Forest Frog

Prystimantis acuminatus Green Rain Frog

Dendrobatidae Poison Frogs Prystimantis aff peruvianus Peruvian Rain Frog

Ameerega bilinguis Prystimantis altamazonicus Amazonian Rain Frog

Ameerega ingeri Ruby Poison Frog Prystimantis conspicillatus Chirping Robber Frog

Ameerega insperatus Prystimantis lanthanites Striped-throated Rain Frog

Ameerega parvulus Prystimantis malkini Malkini's Rain Frog

Ameerega zaparo Sanguine Poison Frog Prystimantis martiae Marti's rainfrog

Colostethus bocagei Prystimantis ockendeni complex Carabaya Rain Frog

Colostethus marchesianus Ucayali Rocket Frog Prystimantis sulcatus Broad-headed Rain Frog

Dendrobates duellmani Duellmans Poison Frog Prystimantis variabilis Variable Rain Frog

Hypnodactylus nigrovittatus Black-banded Robber Frog

Hylidae Tree Frogs Strabomantis sulcatus Broad-headed Rain Frog

Cruziohyla craspedopus Amazon Leaf Frog Engystomops petersi Painted Forest Toadlet cf. Sphaenorhychus carneus Pygmy hatchet-faced Tree Frog Leptodactylus andreae Cocha Chirping Frog

Dendropsophus bifurcus Upper Amazon Tree Frog Leptodactylus knudseni Rose-sided Jungle Frog

Dendropsophus marmorata Neotropical Marbled Tree Frog Leptodactylus mystaceus

Dendropsophus rhodopeplus Red Striped Tree Frog Leptodactylus rhodomystax Moustached Jungle Frog

Dendropsophus triangulium Variable Clown Tree Frog Leptodactylus wagneri Wagneris Jungle Frog

Hemiphractus aff. scutatus Casque-headed Tree Frog Lithodytes lineatus Painted Antnest Frog

Hyla lanciformis Rocket Tree Frog Oreobates quixensis Common big headed Rain Frog

Hyla maomaratus Vanzolinius discodactylus Dark-blotched Whistling Frog

Hylomantis buckleyi

Hylomantis hulli Ranidae True Frogs

Hypsiboas boans Gladiator Tree Frog Rana palmipes Neotropical Green Frog

Hypsiboas calcarata Convict Tree Frog

Hypsiboas geographica Map Tree Frog Class Arachnida

Hypsiboas punctatus Common Polkadot Tree Frog Araneae Hypsiboas geographica Map Tree Frog Nephila clavipes Golden Silk Spider Hypsiboas punctatus Common Polkadot Tree Frog Ancylometes terrenus Giant Fishing Spider Osteocephalus cabrerai complex Forest bromeliad Tree Frog

Osteocephalus cf. deridens Class Insecta Osteocephalus leprieurii Common bromeliad Tree Frog

Osteocephalus planiceps Flat-headed bromeliad Tree Frog Coleoptera

Trachycephalus resinifictrix Amazonian Milk Tree Frog Euchroma gigantea Giant Ceiba Borer 56

Homoeotelus d'orbignyi Pleasing Fungus Beetle Eunica alpais

Eunica amelio

Scarabaeidae Eunica clytia

Canthon luteicollis Eunica volumna

Deltochilum howdeni Hamadryas albicornus

Dichotomius ohausi Hamadryas arinome

Dichotomius prietoi Hamadryas chloe

Eurysternus caribaeus Hamadryas feronia

Hamadryas laodamia Eurysternus confusus

Nessaea batesii Eurysternus foedus

Nessaea hewitsoni Eurysternus inflexus

Nica flavilla Eurysternus plebejus

Panacea prola

Panacea regina Grylloptera

Paulogramma peristera Panacanthus cuspidatus Spiny Devil Katydid

Phrrhogyra amphiro Hemiptera

Pyrrhogyra crameri Dysodius lunatus Lunate Flatbug

Pyrrhogyra cuparina

Pyrrhogyra cf nasica Lepidoptera

Pyrrhogyra otolais Lycaenidae

Temenis laothoe Celmia celmus

Janthecla sista

Charaxinae Thecla aetolius

Agrias claudina Thecla mavors

Archaeoprepona amphimachus Colobura annulata

Archaeoprepona demophon Colobura dirce

Archaeoprepona demophon muson

Archaeoprepona licomedes Nymphalidae

Consul fabius Apaturinae

Hypna clytemnestra Doxocopa agathina

Memphis arachne Doxocopa griseldis

Memphis oenomaus Doxocopa laurentia

Memphis philomena Doxocopa linda

Memphis offa

Prepon a eugenes Biblidinae

Prepona dexamenus Biblis hyperia

Prepona laertes Callicore cynosura

Prepona pheridamas Catonephele acontius

Zaretis isidora Catonephele esite

Zaretis itys Catonephele numilia

Diaethria clymena

Cyrestinae Dynamine aerata

Marpesia berania Dynamine arthemisia

Marpesia crethon Dynamine athemon

Marpesia petreus Dynamine gisella

Ectima thecla lerina 57

Danainae Heliconius doris

Pieridae Philaethria dido

Appias Drusilla

Dismorphia pinthous Limenitidinae

Eurema cf xanthochlora Adelpha amazona

Perrhybris lorena Adelpha cocala

Phoebis rurina Adelpha cytherea

Adelpha erotia

Danainae Adelpha iphicleola

Danaini Adelpha iphiclus

Danaus plexippus Adelpha lerna

Ithomiini Adelpha melona

Aeria eurimidea Adelpha mesentina

Ceratinia tutia Adelpha naxia

Hypoleria sarepta Adelpha panaema

Hyposcada anchiala Adelpha phrolseola

Hyposcada illinissa Adelpha thoasa

Hypothyris anastasia Adelpha viola

Hypothyris fluonia Adelpha ximena

Ithomia amarilla

Ithomia salapia Nymphalinae

Mechanitis lysimnia Anartia amathae

Mechanitis mazaeus Anartia jatrophae

Mechanitis messenoides Baeotus deucalion

Methona confusa psamathe Eresia eunice

Methone Cecilia Eresia pelonia

Oleria gunilla Historis odius

Oleria ilerdina Historis acheronta

Oleria tigilla Metamorpha elisa

Tithorea harmonia Metamorpha sulpitia

Phyciodes plagiata

Heliconinae Siproeta stelenes

Acraeini Smyrna blomfildia

Actinote sp. Tigridia acesta

Heliconiini

Dryas iulia Satyrinae

Eueides Eunice Bras solini

Eueides isabella Bia actorion

Eueides lampeto Caligo eurilochus

Eueides lybia Caligo idomeneus idomeneides

Heliconius erato Caligo illioneus

Heliconius hecale Caligo teucer

Heliconius melponmene Catoblepia cassiope

Heliconius numata Caligo placidiamus

Heliconius sara Catoblepia berecynthia

Heliconius xanthocles Catoblepia cassiope 58

Catoblepia generosa Magneuptychia tiessa

Catoblepia sorannus Pareuptychia hesionides Pareuptychia hesionides

Catoblepia xanthus Pareuptychia ocirrhoe

Opsiphanes invirae Taygetis cleopatra Cleopatra Satyr

Taygetis echo Echo Satyr

Haeterini Taygetis mermeria

Cithaerias aurora Taygetis sosis Sosis Satyr

Cithaerias menander

Cithaerias pireta Papilionidae

Haetera macleannania Battus belus varus

Haetera piera Battus polydamas

Pierella astyoche Papilio androgeus

Pierella hortona Papilio thoas cyniras

Pierella lamia Parides aeneas bolivar

Pierella lena Parides lysander

Pierella lucia Parides pizarro

Parides sesostris

Morphini

Antirrhea hela Riodinidae

Antirrhea philoctetes avernus Common Brown Morpho Amarynthis meneria

Morpho achilles Ancyluris endaemon

Morpho deidamia Ancyluris aulestes

Morpho helenor Ancyluris etias

Morpho menelaus Anteros renaldus

Morpho peleides Calospila cilissa

Morpho polycarmes Calospila partholon

Calospila emylius

Satyrini Calydna venusta

Caeruleuptychia scopulata Cartea vitula

Chloreuptychia agatha Emesis fatinella

Chloreuptychia herseis Emesis lucinda

Euptychia binoculata Emesis mandana

Euptychia labe Emesis ocypore

Euptychia myncea Eurybia dardus

Euptychia renata Eurybia elvina

Hermeuptychia hermes Eurybia franciscana

Sarota chrysus Eurybia halimede

Sarota spicata Eurybia unxia

Setabis gelasine Hyphilaria parthenis

Stalachtis calliope Isapis agyrtus

Stalachtis phaedusa Ithomiola floralis

Synargis orestessa Lasaia agesilaus narses

Magneuptychia analis Lasaia pseudomeris

Magneuptychia libye Leucochimona vestalis

Magneuptychia ocnus Livendula amaris

Magneuptychia ocypete Livendula violacea 59

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

Pirascca tyriotes

Rhetus arcius

Rhetus periander

60

10.2 Yachana Reserve Map

61

10.3 Complete Benthic Surveying Results

ORDER FAMILY BMWP P1 P2 S1 S2 Diptera Caratopogonidae 3 1 1 Chironomidae 2 5 11 Simuliidae 5 1 Tipulidae 3 1 2 9 Coleoptera Elmidae 6 6 2 6 6 Psephenidae 10 10 26 23 12 Ptilodactylidae 10 5 18 1 Other 0 2 Crustacea Decapoda 8 1 2 Ephemeroptera Batidae 7 1 Euthyplocidae 9 2 1 Leptohyphidae 7 1 6 Leptophlebiidae 9 20 12 5 28 Other 0 6 6 5 Hemiptera Naucoridae 7 6 8 11 14 Neuroptera Corydalidae 6 7 Odonata Anisoptera 8 1 1 1 Zygoptera 8 8 3 12 23 Oligochaeta Annelidae 1 1 3 Tubificidae 1 1 3 Plecoptera Perlidae 10 1 3 1 1 Trichoptera Glossosomatidae 7 2 9 Hydropsychidae 8 8 13 2 Leptoceridae 9 1 Odontoceridae 10 3 12 14 31 Other 0 1 4 Tricladia Planarida 5 2 Total 134 119 90 92 BMWP Mean 126.5 91 BMWP

Legend: P1= Abundances at site 1 at Stream 1 (25/05/10) P2= Abundances at site 2 at Stream 1 (26/05/10) S1= Abundances at site 1 at Stream 2 (24/05/10) S2= Abundances at site 2 at Stream 2 (27/05/10)

62