You are on page 1of 46

Global Vision International,

XXXXX Report Series No. 00X


ISSN XXXX-XXXX (Print)

GVI Ecuador

Rainforest Conservation and Community


Development

Phase Report 091


January – March 2009
GVI Ecuador/Rainforest Conservation and Community Development
Expedition Report 091
`
Submitted in whole to
Global Vision International
Yachana Foundation
Museo Ecuatoriano de Ciencias Naturales (MECN)

Produced by

Chris Beirne – Field Staff


Jonathan Escolar – Field Manager
Matt Iles - Field Staff

And

Katherine Allinson Expedition Member Sima Lowery Expedition Member


Rebecca Andrews Expedition Member Victoria Morgan-Hill Expedition Member
Robert Bakewell Expedition Member Dan Neilson Expedition Member
Chelsea Bryson Expedition Member Mark Obeney Expedition Member
Sophie Cousins Expedition Member James Pitt Expedition Member
Cornelia Eberl Expedition Member Alan Rea Expedition Member
Max Hardman Expedition Member Rachel Reisinger Expedition Member
Sarah Henley Expedition Member Glen Skelton Expedition Member
Amy Hill Expedition Member Jeanette Theuner Expedition Member
Tom Keating Expedition Member Catherine Toops Expedition Member
Duncan Lowery Expedition Member Natalie White Expedition Member

Edited by

Karina Berg – Country Director

GVI Ecuador/Rainforest Conservation and Community Development


Address: Casilla Postal 17-07-8832
Quito, Ecuador
Email: ecuador@gvi.co.uk
Web page: http://www.gvi.co.uk and http://www.gviusa.com
Executive Summary
This report documents the work of Global Vision International’s (GVI) Rainforest
Conservation and Community Development Expedition in Ecuador’s Amazon region and
run in partnership with the Yachana Foundation, based at the Yachana Reserve in the
province of Napo. During the first phase of 2009 from 09 January to 20 March 2009, GVI
has:

• Added one bird species, the Fulvous-crested Tanager (Tachyphonus surinamus), to


the reserve species list.
• Conducted seven mist netting sessions, providing 37 captures of 13 different species.
• Made incidental sightings of twelve species of mammal, two of which, the Water Rat
(Nectomys squamipes) and the Common Opossum (Didelphis marsupialis), were new
to the reserve species list.
• Continued collecting swab samples from amphibians within the reserve in order to
assess the status of the epidemic fungal disease Batrachochytrium dendrobatitus,
which provided one positive result out of 68 samples.
• Encountered 98 reptile and amphibian individuals through transect surveys.
• Conducted a brief investigation into GVI’s impact on the environment surrounding base
camp, by assessing amphibian and Benthic invertebrate populations.
• Conducted preliminary investigations for a new project assessing dung beetle
communities present in the reserve.
• Added seven invertebrate species to the reserve species list.
• Continued with English lessons for local school children in Puerto Rico.
• Accommodated three graduate students from the Yachana Technical High School
throughout the phase as part of a National Scholarship Program.
• Welcomed two current students from the Yachana Technical High School to join the
expedition for a three week period, in order to exchange language skills, knowledge
and experience.
• Sent four volunteers to spend a week at the Yachana Technical High School to
partake in the school’s practical classes, and to provide drama workshops to enhance
English language skills and environmental education lessons for the students.

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

iv
Table of Contents
1 Introduction 7
2 Avian Research 9
2.1 Introduction 9
2.2 Methods 9
2.3 Results 10
2.4 Discussion 11
2.5 Conclusion 11
3 Mammal Incidentals 12
3.1 Introduction 12
3.2 Methods 12
3.3 Results 12
3.4 Discussion 13
3.5 Conclusion 13
4 Herpetological Research 13
4.1 Introduction 13
4.2 Determining the presence of Chytrid fungus 14
4.3 Pump Stream amphibian activity 16
4.4 Conclusion 21
5 Benthic Invertebrates and Stream Health 22
5.1 Introduction 22
5.2 Methods 23
5.3 Results 25
5.4 Discussion 27
5.5 Conclusion 28
6 Dung Beetle Research 28
6.1 Introduction 28
6.2 Methods 29
6.3 Results 29
6.4 Discussion 30
6.5 Conclusion 31
7 Invertebrate Incidentals 31
8 BTEC Advanced Certificate in Supervision of Biological Surveys 32
9 Community Development Projects 32
9.1 Colegio Técnio Yachana (Yachana Technical College) 32
9.2 National Scholarship Program 33
9.3 TEFL at Puerto Rico 33
10 Future Expedition Aims 33
11 References 35
Appendix A – Dung Beetle Preliminary Research Results 39
Appendix B – Species List 40
Appendix C – Trail Map of Yachana Reserve 46

v
List of Figures

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

List of Tables

Table 4.1: Sampling effort for Pump Stream surveys.


Table 5.1 EPT Index scores.
Table 5.2 Sensitivity Index scores.
Table 5.3 Water quality results for upper Pump Stream on EPT and Sensitivity indices.
Table 5.4 Water quality results for lower Pump Stream on EPT and Sensitivity indices.

vi
1 Introduction

The Rainforest Conservation and Community Development expedition operated by Global


Vision International (GVI) is located at the Yachana Reserve in the Napo province in the
Amazonian region of Ecuador. Yachana Reserve is a legally-designated Bosque Protector
(Protected Forest), consisting of approximately 2000 hectares of predominantly primary
lowland rainforest, as well as abandoned plantations, grassland, riparian forest,
regenerating forest and a road. The Yachana Reserve is owned and managed by the
Yachana Foundation.

The Yachana Foundation is dedicated to finding sustainable solutions to the problems


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

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

7
GVI additionally conducts Teaching English as a Foreign Language (TEFL) classes at the
nearby community of Puerto Rico, twice a week. Classes are prepared the day before and
last for one hour. Groups of two or three volunteers conduct the classes, covering topics
such as introductions, animals, colours and expressions. This allows GVI to integrate with
the local community, whilst giving volunteers the opportunity to experience first hand
involvement in community development and TEFL. This is also currently laying the
foundation to introduce environmental education programmes to the Puerto Rico
community in the future.

GVI also works with local research institutions. The Ecuadorian Museum for Natural
Sciences (Museo Ecuatoriano de Ciencias Naturales, MECN) provides technical
assistance with field research and project development. The museum is a government
research institution which houses information and conducts research on the presence and
distribution of floral and faunal species throughout Ecuador. GVI has a permit through the
MECN for the collection of specimens of reptiles, amphibians, small mammals and
butterflies, and a permit for catching bats and birds. The data and specimens collected by
GVI are being lodged with the MECN in order to make this information nationally and
internationally available, and to provide verification of our field data. MECN technicians are
continuously invited to The Yachana Reserve to conduct in-field training and education for
GVI and Yachana students, as well as explore research opportunities otherwise
unavailable. With Pontifica Universidad Catolica Ecuador (PUCE), GVI has established a
collaboration involving the amphibian projects within the reserve. PUCE has requested
data from the reserve to aid in their ongoing conservation efforts towards the amphibians
of the neotropics.

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

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


diversity.
• Conducting long-term biological and conservation based research projects.
8
• Monitoring of biological integrity within the Yachana Reserve and the immediate
surrounding area.
• Publication of research findings in primary scientific literature.
• Solicitation of visiting researchers and academic collaborators.
• Identification of regional or bio-geographic endemic species or sub-species.
• Identification of species that are included within IUCN or Convention on
International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES)
appendices.
• Identification of keystone species important for ecosystem function.
• Identification of new species, sub-species, and range extensions.
• Identification of charismatic species that can be valuable for the promotion of The
Yachana Reserve to visitors.

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

2 Avian Research

2.1 Introduction
GVI continues to monitor the avian communities within the reserve and to identify
additional bird species using the following three survey techniques: local bird surveys, mist
netting, and incidental sightings.

2.2 Methods

2.2.1 Local Bird Surveys


This is a qualitative survey method conducted in the more open areas within the Yachana
Reserve to facilitate visual surveying of birds. Trails that pass through secondary forest,
plantation forest, open grassland, riparian forest, and along the road are surveyed during
the morning (0600 - 0900 h) and afternoon (1600 – 1830 h) for bird activity. The date, start
and end time, species heard or seen, number, and sex if known are recorded.
9
2.2.2 Mist Netting
In order to collect individuals for identification and banding, mist netting is conducted. Nets
are opened during peak bird activity in the morning and afternoon. Mist netting allows GVI
to band individuals and identify less conspicuous species otherwise impossible to observe
with other methodology. Conducted consistently over time, data can be collected that
identifies migratory species, and shifts in diversity and abundance. Two areas of the
reserve are currently sampled - an open area of secondary forest adjacent to grassland on
the Ridge Trail, and a stretch of primary forest located on the Bloop Trail.

2.2.3 Incidental Data Recordings


Species that were encountered outside of point count and local bird surveys are also
recorded if they were believed to be rare or not previously identified to be within the
reserve (e.g. nocturnal species during satellite camps). Incidental sightings can take place
at any time, during any of the other survey or project work within the reserve. At the time of
each incidence the time, location, date, species, and any other key characteristics or notes
are taken and later entered into a database back in camp.

2.3 Results

2.3.1 Local Bird Surveys


Four local bird surveys were conducted at two different sites (Ridge Lookouts 1 & 2). 51
individuals were counted in total, ranging from 9 to 21 individuals per survey. The most
common of these was the Yellow-rumped Cacique (Cacicus cela). Several species of
tanagers were also sighted throughout all surveys, including the Magpie Tanager (Cissopis
leveriana), Masked Crimson Tanager (Ramphocelus nigrogularis), Scarlet Tanager
(Piranaga olivacea) and the Thick-billed Euphonia (Euphonia laniirostris).

2.3.2 Mist Netting


Seven mist netting sessions were conducted at two different sights (Ridge Trail and upper
Bloop Trail) during the expedition. In total 37 individuals and 13 different species were
captured over the seven sessions. Of these birds, two had been previously banded by
GVI, a Blue-crowned Manakin (Lepidothrix coronata) and a White-necked Thrush (Turdus
albicollis), both of which were recaptured in the primary rainforest where they were initially
banded. Twelve bands were issued to suitable birds i.e. those that were not too stressed
by capture and possessed a tarsus suitably sized to hold a band.
10
2.3.3 Incidental Sightings
Incidental sightings added one new species to the Yachana species list this phase. This
was the Fulvous-crested Tanager (Tachyphonus surinamus), observed on the Ficus Trail.

2.4 Discussion

2.4.1 Local Bird Surveys


The data collected from local bird surveys is useful for documenting and identifying which
species are common and which are rare within the reserve, providing valuable information
to the Yachana Foundation and the Yachana Lodge, which is useful for the direction of the
Management Plan, and the lodge’s tour guides and its visitors. Local bird surveys
conducted throughout the year also reveal patterns of migratory species.

2.4.2 Mist Netting


The mist netting surveys were particularly valuable for catching and identifying species
otherwise difficult to detect or identify simply through observational methods. It is intended
that mist netting will form a large part of future avian research in the reserve, with the
intention of banding more individuals. This will provide interesting long-term data for
recaptured individuals.

2.4.3 Incidental Sightings


Incidental sightings added one new species to the list this phase, emphasizing the need to
stay alert at all times when out in the forest and the need to use alternative methods (e.g.
mist netting) for surveying secretive or rare bird species (Allen et al. 2004; Lacher et al.
2004).

2.5 Conclusion
Avian survey work continues to focus on adding species to the reserve checklist. It is
recommended, however, that future expeditions focus on using the data more
constructively and use statistical indices to measure species richness and diversity. More
mist netting should also be conducted as these surveys are particularly productive at
revealing less detectable species. A new project is also currently being planned, with the
aim of assessing the bird assemblages that are found along the road, which runs through
the Yachana Reserve. As tourists staying at the Yachana Lodge use the road in order to
view wildlife, particularly birds, it would be useful to have a catalogue of the species
11
associated with it and how the assemblages vary along the road. This may also provide
some scientific insight into how the road affects the ecology of the bird population found
within the reserve.

3 Mammal Incidentals

3.1 Introduction
GVI continues to document mammal species in the reserve predominately through
incidental sightings of the mammals and tracks they leave. The recording of mammals is
confined to incidental recordings due to the fact that the occurrence of conspicuous diurnal
mammals is low. Excessive mammal concentrated surveying is not sufficiently productive.
However, long walks in the forest have been continued to increase chances of seeing
diurnal and nocturnal mammals.

3.2 Methods

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

3.3 Results
During this phase, twelve mammal species were sighted incidentally, during other survey
work or walks into the forest. Of these, two were new species to the Yachana species list.
Incidental sightings included regular encounters with Amazon Red Squirrel (Sciurus sp.),
Black Agouti (Dasyprocta fuliginosa), Black-mantled Tamarins (Saguinus nigricollis),
Kinkajou (Potos flavus), Night monkeys (Aotus sp.) and Water Opossum (Chironectes
minimus). Sightings were also made of Amazon Bamboo Rat (Dactylomys dactylinus),
Four-eyed Opossum (Philander sp.), Neotropical Otter (Lontra longicaudis) and a
Southern two-toed Sloth (Choloepus diadactylus). The Water Rat (Nectomys squamipes),
encountered several times along the reserve’s main stream, and the Common Opossum
(Didelphis marsupialis), observed in camp, were new additions to the reserve species list.

12
3.4 Discussion
The elusiveness of many mammal species means they are often difficult to survey and
particularly in the Yachana Reserve as their occurrence is less than regular. Incidental
sightings alone have provided us with twelve of the 48 mammal species (19 of which are
bats from past bat netting sessions). Two of the incidental sightings were new to the
Yachana species list.

3.5 Conclusion
Incidental sightings continue to provide the bulk of mammal encounters in the reserve. For
this reason, night walks and long forays into the forest should be conducted regularly.
These should ideally be performed in small groups in order to minimise disturbance and
increase the likelihood of sightings. The two new additions to the species list are likely to
have been resident in the reserve prior to these sightings, however have probably passed
by unnoticed due to their ability to move around the forest inconspicuously. This,
therefore, demonstrates the need to maintain vigilance at all time in the forest and around
camp.

4 Herpetological Research

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

13
introduction of a new project, an assessment of the effects of the Yachana Reserve/GVI
base camp on the amphibian population assemblage of the surrounding environment.

4.2 Determining the Presence of Chytrid Fungus

4.2.1 Introduction
Chytrid fungus has been attributed to extinctions and severe declines of amphibian
populations worldwide (Menendez-Guerrero et al. 2006). In the phase 083, a swab sample
from a rain frog on Stream 1, Prystimantis malkini, tested positive for the Chytrid fungus.
However, the swab samples from phase 084 were found to be unanimously negative.
Despite the apparent low abundance of Chytrid fungus within the reserve, it is important to
continue swabbing individuals to determine whether or not the fungus is spreading.

4.2.2 Methods

Sampling Techniques
Amphibians and reptiles are surveyed by conducting stream walks and transects. These
walks are conducted both during the day and at night in an attempt to target amphibians
and reptiles with different activity patterns. Groups search along the banks and
surrounding vegetation including overhanging branches and vines, which provide excellent
cover for many species of tree frog. The time, position along the stream, and microhabitat
are recorded for each specimen located. The individual’s snout to vent length (svl) is also
noted, in addition to any physical characteristics that may aid the identification of unknown
species.

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

14
Sampling of Chytrid Fungus
In accordance with PUCE, captured amphibians are swabbed for PCR analysis in order to
detect the presence of B. dendrobatitus. This involves swabbing the individual 30 times
across the belly and a further 15 times on each leg, focusing on the groin region where the
fungus is thought to be concentrated. Amphibians are then euthanized using the
anaesthetic Lidocaine. A tissue sample is then taken from the frogs left thigh and an
additional sample is taken from the liver. PUCE then uses these tissue samples to add to
gene database of the amphibians of Latin America. This is part of a wider project linked to
work at PUCE involving the captive breeding of rare and endemic species with the aim of
reintroductions.

Incidental Sightings
Species that were encountered outside of stream and forest transect surveys were also
swabbed and recorded using the same protocols as on stream and forest transects. A
record was also kept of all incidental reptile sightings, including their location and
microhabitat.

4.2.3 Results

Chytrid Fungus Testing


Fifteen stream and forest transects were conducted during the phase, which resulted in
the encounter of 72 amphibian individuals, 68 of which where swabbed to detect the
presence or absence of the Chytrid fungus. The swabs were sent to PUCE for analysis by
Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR). One sample was found to be positive for Chytrid:
Prystimantis ockendeni complex, on the upper Pump Stream. All other samples were
found to be negative for the Chytrid fungus.

Species Encountered
During this phase, 98 reptile and amphibian individuals were encountered comprising of 30
species. Of the 72 amphibians located, 70% belonged to six common species; Ameerega
billinguis, Engostymops petersi, Oreobates quixensis, Osteocephalus cabrerai complex,
Prystimantis malkini and Prystimantis ockendeni complex. Other sightings of note were
Prystimantis nigrovitattus, Hypsiboas boans and Lithodytes lineatus.

15
4.2.4 Discussion

Chytrid Fungus
Despite recording a positive result for the Chytrid fungus test during this phase, the low
prevalence of the fungus means it should not be a research priority for subsequent
phases. However, it will be important to repeat swabbing for Chytrid fungus in six months
as the threat of a Chytrid fungus epidemic cannot be ruled out in the future.

Species Encountered
Transect walks and incidental sightings are still providing valuable data for both the long
term monitoring project and the field guide. Any future projects should include these
methods in their data collection.

4.3 Pump Stream Amphibian Survey

4.3.1 Introduction
Amphibians are vital indicators of environmental quality as they are very susceptible to
changes in the environment (Gardner et al, 2007; Lyaruu et al, 2000). According to
Gardner et al (2007) it is essential that we learn more about the patterns of diversity and
habitat preferences of individual species. This data can then be used to monitor population
declines and inform effective conservation strategies, particularly where amphibians act as
indicators of change in their environment.

The GVI base camp is situated in close proximity to a small stream running close to the
camp in which water is regularly pumped out for use in daily camp life. Used water is then
allowed to drain back into the local surrounding environment. Amphibians are particularly
sensitive to changes in water quality and have frequently been described as excellent
indicators of water quality and the stability of the surrounding environment. The impact that
the GVI base camp has on the surrounding environment was assessed to determine any
adverse affects that may be avoided in future work related to daily camp living.

The principal goal of the study is to investigate the amphibian assemblages along the
Pump Stream close to the GVI base camp. Surveys were conducted in areas before water
is pumped from the stream and then further down stream after it has been pumped out.
Through conducting Benthic surveys along the stream we can also gain a good
16
assessment of water quality related to invertebrate assemblages and detect any
differences in stream water quality in the locations pre and post the pumping of water for
base camp, in accordance with amphibian data.

4.3.2 Methods
Two main methods were implemented to assess the presence of different amphibian
species along the lower and upper regions of the Pump Stream; pitfall trapping and visual
encounter surveys.

Pitfall Trapping
At two sites, one on the upper and one on the lower Pump Stream, leaf-litter amphibian
and lizards were sampled with pitfalls traps and drift fences. At each sample site, two 20-
litre plastic buckets were installed parallel to the stream edge. The buckets were
connected via an eight meter long, 50 cm high plastic baffle. The lower Pump Stream was
sampled from the 02 March 2009 to the 09 March 2009 and the upper Pump Stream was
sampled from the 09 March 2009 to the 16 March 2009. This resulted in 28-nights of
sampling effort in each stream. All amphibians captured were collected to remove the
possibility of subsequent recapture at a later date.

Visual Encounter Surveys


Nocturnal and crepuscular visual encounter surveys were employed along 120m stream
transects in the upper and lower Pump Stream. Where possible both transects were
surveyed on the same day to minimise the effect of weather variation on the amphibian
assemblage. The surveys took place the 23 February 2009 and the 12 March 2009. The
surveys took place at times that have been found to coincide with peak frog activity:
crepuscular surveys took place between 0530 h and 0830 h, and nocturnal surveys took
place between 1930 h and 2230 h.

Transects were searched at a rate of roughly one meter per minute. All amphibians found
within 3m of each side of the stream were captured and collected thus removing the
possibility that they would be recaptured on a later survey. To minimise the effect of team
size and transect duration variability, a measure of effort was calculated by determining
the number of search minutes per transect (see Table 4.1). These values were calculated
by multiplying the search time for each transect by the number of observers on each
transect.
17
Sampling Effort (sampling
time x num. Observers)
Upper Lower
23-Feb-09 896
25-Feb-09 833
03-Mar-09 575 642
06-Mar-09 810 400
09-Mar-09 575 565
12-Mar-09 420
Total Effort 2793 2923

Table 4.1: Sampling effort for Pump Stream surveys.

Surveying rainforest habitat is a privileged opportunity; however there is the potential to


negatively affect the ecosystem by passing infections between sites and species. Good
practices will be strictly adhered to so as to ensure transmissions are not possible. This
will be achieved by systematic cleaning of tools, equipment, and sterile gloves will be
changed when handling different individuals. All volunteers were fully briefed regarding
precautionary measures and effective surveying techniques.

Benthic Surveying
Benthic surveys were conducted in both the upper and lower transects of the Pump
Stream to assess water quality based upon invertebrate species found within the stream.
The methods and details of this work can be viewed in the corresponding Benthic survey
report of the GVI Yachana Reserve Pump Stream.

Weather Data
Weather data was collected using a Sun-Moon Radio Controlled Weather Station at the
GVI base camp. Temperature, pressure, humidity, cloud cover and rainfall data was
recorded at 0600 h, 1200 h and 1800 h daily.

4.3.3 Results
In total, three species of amphibian were found in the lower Pump Stream region (see
Table 4.2) whilst in the upper Pump Stream region we found seven species (see Table
4.3). Eight different species were found in total. Rhinella marinus was the only species
unique to the lower Pump Stream area, whilst Allobates bilinguis, Hypnodactylus
nigrovittatus, Pristimantis martiae and Pristimantis acuminatus were all species found only
18
within the upper areas of the Pump Stream. Pristimantis ockendeni and Bolitoglossa
peruviana were the two species that were common to both the upper and lower Pump
Stream transects.

In total 18 individuals were caught throughout the sampling period, six of which were
caught within the pitfall traps and the other twelve being caught on visual encounter
surveys. Five of the nine P. ockendeni caught were captured in pitfall traps with only a
single H. nigrovittatus being the only other pitfall capture.

No significant correlation was found between the number of amphibians encountered and;
temperature (R2=0.229), rainfall (R2=0.036) or pressure (R2=0.010).

6
Pitfall Trapping

Visual Encounter Survey

5
Number of Individuals Encountered

0
Prystimantis okendeni Bolitoglossa peruviana Rhinella marinus
Species Encountered on Lower Pump Stream

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

19
6

Pitfall Trapping

Visual Encounter Survey


5

4
Individuals Encountered
Number of

0
Prystimantis Allobates biliguis Bolitoglossa Hypnodactylus Pristimantis martiae Oreobates Pristimantis
okendeni peruviana nigrovittatus quixensis acuminatus
Species Encountered on Upper Pump Stream

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

4.3.4 Discussion
The results from this phase do appear to indicate that there is a greater species richness
of amphibians to be found within the upper areas of the Pump Stream than the lower
areas. This may indicate that the GVI base camp is having an adverse effect on the quality
of the lower area by frequently pumping out water and allowing used water to drain off into
the area. For this reason we suggest that this work be repeated throughout future GVI
phases in order to increase the robustness of the data collected here, enough to carry out
statistical analysis. The number of individuals actually caught within the study was very
small to be able to conduct any reliable statistical analysis. It may be a factor to be taken
into consideration for collection and removal of water for the GVI base camp in the near
future.

At this stage we can not simply assess the differences in species found due to any effects
of the GVI camp. It could simply be that there are differences in microhabitats at these
different transects of the stream. Vegetation mapping could be used to investigate this in a
future surveying period on these sites.

20
The study was too short term to see if any significant relationships between weather
variables and amphibian abundances were present. This data was recorded throughout
the study however must be continued for any comparison in other research phases to see
if any trends between weather data sets and amphibian abundances become apparent in
the future.

The project was conducted not only to assess the effects of GVI camp on the Pump
Stream but also to trial sampling methods on amphibians within the area for their suitability
and effectiveness. This was very useful in allowing us to determine the effectiveness of
both methods. The pitfall traps are labour intensive to prepare and install but once up are
very quick and easy to check. They seemed particularly useful in detecting P. ockendeni
which is a leaf litter egg laying species. The visual encounter surveys are particularly
important in detecting a variety of different species which otherwise would not have been
found. Overall it can be seen that a combination of methods is essential and will be used
within our future GVI surveys.

4.4 Conclusion
It would appear that the reserve has a relatively low background rate of Chytrid fungus
infection. Due to this, it is unlikely that we will resume swabbing for the Chytrid fungus
within the next six months. It will be vital to recommence swabbing in the future, however it
is not a research priority at the current time.

The investigation into the effects of camp water removal and waste release on the
amphibian assemblages within the upper and lower Pump Stream offered encouraging
preliminary results, with the caveat that we did not collect sufficient data to perform reliable
statistical tests. The methods will be repeated in future phases with the aim to increase the
robustness of our preliminary conclusion.

The data collected this phase will also be used to build a one year long term study into
amphibian assemblages of the Yachana Reserve. The project will be focused on pitfall
trapping, as we have found it to be a reliable and successful method. It also has the
advantage of negating observer bias effects due to varying group sizes and experience
levels. However, the visual encounter method of amphibian and reptile diction has also

21
proved valuable to sample a larger subset of the species found on the reserve. Any future
project will certainly employ a combination of these two methods.

5 Benthic Invertebrates and Stream Health

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

Two study sites were investigated that represented two different treatments: one pre-
discharge (sample site two), that is not impacted by wastewater from GVI base camp and
a second post-discharge (sample site one), located downstream from GVI and therefore
exposed to any effluents. It is therefore expected that sample site two, the upper Pump
Stream, will have higher water quality as it is not impacted by effluents discharged by GVI
base camp.

Sampling Benthic invertebrate communities is a reliable and economical way of


determining water quality (Feinsinger, 2001). Each invertebrate family has differing
sensitivities to contaminants, and their presence, or absence, as well as abundance can
be used in different analytical indices to give an indication of water quality. Over 50
different methods have been developed for the biological assessment of water quality in
temperate countries (Cota et. al., 2002) and some have been adapted for use in tropical
regions and their associated biota. The analyses selected for this investigation are
discussed fully in subsequent sections.

22
5.2 Methods

5.2.1 Site Selection


Two study sites were selected, each representing a different treatment. One site was
located before waste water from the base camp entered the water system (upper Pump
Stream) and the other site selected in an area downstream to where waste water was
discharged (lower Pump Stream). Study sites were selected based on the presence of
areas of fast flowing shallow water over rocky substrate known as riffles. Valid study sites
contained riffles of both suitable size and abundance to allow for the collection of 30
samples to be taken from the selected study area.

5.2.2 Collection
Samples were collected by employing a modified kick sampling technique (Sutherland,
1996) with the use of a Surber net (300mm x 300mm). The Surber net was placed upon
the substrate of identified riffles with the net positioned downstream, allowing for the
collection of dislodged individuals. The area of each sample was defined by the frame of
the Surber net resting on the substrate, and all loose stones within it were hand scrubbed
before being placed outside of the sample area and the remaining substrate disturbed
thoroughly by hand to a depth of one inch. After the sample was completed any removed
stones were placed back in their original position so as to minimize disturbance.

After each sample, the contents of the Surber net were emptied into a large bucket with
the net being thoroughly flushed with stream water and then visually checked for
remaining specimens. Collected materials from the sample were divided into trays and
searched for specimens with any individuals found being removed with tweezers and
placed in a killing jar containing 70% alcohol. A separate killing jar was used for case-
crafting Trichoptera to aid in the identification process.

The above process was repeated until 15 samples from each survey site were collected. A
further 15 samples were taken at later dates from both the upper and lower Pump Stream.

5.2.3 Identification
Collected specimens were taken back to the field base and using a taxonomic key (Reyes
& Peralbo, 2001) identified to family level before being tallied. Identification was performed
using 10x hand lenses.
23
5.2.4 Analyses
Tallied results were then used in conjunction with both Ephemeroptera-Plecoptera-
Trichoptera (EPT) index and an individual sensitivity index (Reyes & Peralbo, 2001) to
determine water quality for the selected study areas.

The EPT index measures the percentage of individuals from the orders Ephemeroptera,
Plecoptera and Trichoptera against the total number of individuals in each sample. These
three orders are used as they are particularly sensitive to changes in water quality. The
higher the percentage on this index, the higher the quality of the water. Table 5.1 shows
how the scores relate to water quality.

EPT Total Water quality


75 - 100% Very Good
50 - 74% Good
25 - 49% Moderate
0 - 24% Poor

Table 5.1 EPT Index scores.

This index works on the presence or absence of different orders, sub orders or families
that each have a different degree of sensitivity to contaminants. Each group is assigned a
value of 1 - 10, the groups given a rating of 10 being the most sensitive and the ones rated
1, least sensitive. The score from the groups present is added up and higher scores
indicate a higher quality of water. Table 5.2 shows the values given to each group.

Sensitive Species Total Water quality


101 - 145+ Very Good
61 – 100 Good
36 – 60 Moderate
16 – 35 Poor
0 – 15 Very Poor

Table 5.2 Sensitivity Index scores.

24
5.3 Results

5.3.1 Upper Pump Stream


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

EPT index Sensitivity index


Sample score score
25 Feb 2009 43.35 130
04 Mar 2009 34.81 109
Mean 39.08 119.5

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

5.3.2 Lower Pump Stream


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

EPT index Sensitivity index


Sample score score
23 Feb 2009 22.95 123
17 Mar 2009 29.35 143
Mean 26.15 133

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

5.3.3 EPT Combined Results


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

25
Figure 6.1 EPT scores for upper and lower Pump Stream on each sample date and mean score.

5.3.4 Sensitivity Combined Results


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

Figure 6.2 Sensitivity index scores for upper and lower Pump Stream on each sample date and
mean score.
26
5.4 Discussion
The major surprise presented by the results of this study is that the EPT index and
Sensitivity index gave contradicting results for all the samples collected. The values
obtained from the EPT index fit the null hypothesis that water quality is higher on the upper
Pump Stream, although the sample size is too small to test for a significant difference
statistically. With the Sensitivity index however, water quality was on average higher in the
lower Pump Stream, although again, the sample size was not large enough to test for
significant differences.

The reason for this disparity is that the analyses used are unsuitable for the Neotropical
region, despite the fact that these were taken from a source designed for use in Ecuador
by Ecuadorians (Reyes & Peralbo, 2001). The use of the EPT index gives unreliable
results because the number of families of stoneflies (Plecoptera) drops off to just one,
Perlidae, the closer one is to the equator (Feinsinger, 2001). After further research and
consultation a more suitable analysis was found for the Neotropics, the BMWP/Col index
(Contreras et. al., 2008) that uses more relevant families as sensitivity indicators.

The use of the Sensitivity index is also questionable because unlike the EPT index it does
not take abundance into account. This could affect the accuracy of results as some
samples yield substantially more individuals than others. For example, the 17 March 2009
sample consisted of 620 individual invertebrates, whereas the other three samples had a
mean of 173 individuals. It should be noted however, that the BMWP/Col index also
ignores abundance and works solely on presence or absence of families. The identification
key provided by Reyes and Peralbo (2001) also limited the accuracy of the study as a
large proportion of the invertebrates collected could only be identified as ‘other’. A new key
(Contreras, et. al., 2008) that enables identification of a greater number of families will be
used for future studies.

The use of the Surber net to sample riffles was effective, although other studies have
found kick nets to yield better and more cost-effective results (Buss & Borges, 2008). A
combination of the two methods would enable sampling of both riffles and pools and may
give a more complete sample of benthic invertebrate assemblages.

27
Some other physical factors that may affect the lower Pump Stream and potentially skew
results have been noted. First, a landslide has blocked the flow of the stream in one area
creating a large, still body of water. The flow then returns to normal but the 17 March 2009
sample was taken downstream from this site as there were not enough suitable riffles
higher up the waterway. A road is also in close proximity to a stretch of the lower Pump
Stream, and although the level of traffic is low, runoff could potentially have an impact on
water quality.

Another factor that must be addressed in future studies is non-use of weather data in
correlation with these data. Precipitation levels can have a significant effect on Benthic
macro invertebrate communities, as many may be washed away after periods of heavy
rainfall. There was particularly heavy rainfall prior to surveying the upper Pump Stream on
the 04 March 2009 that may have washed away a significant number of the invertebrates
present.

5.5 Conclusion
The main conclusion drawn from this investigation is that the analyses used were
unreliable at giving an accurate reflection of water quality as they are unsuited to
Neotropical freshwater habitats. The sample sites should be re-sampled and analysed
using the BMWP/Col index and a more detailed identification key, and deeper water areas
should be sampled using kick nets in addition to the sampling of riffles with Surber nets.
Moreover, a greater number of samples should be taken to allow a statistical analysis of
the samples to be carried out. Ideally this should be conducted at regular interval
throughout the year to look for seasonal variations and these data should be correlated
with weather data.

As the water quality results are unreliable we are unable to make recommendations
regarding changes to GVI practice and infrastructure.

6 Dung Beetle Research

6.1 Introduction
Dung beetles (Order Coleoptera, Family Scarabaeidae) are broadly recognised as a good
indicator of habitat quality (Spector & Forsyth, 1998). They are a useful target group for
28
investigating spatial and temporal patterns of biodiversity. By burying dung on which adults
and larvae feed upon, dung beetles act as secondary seed dispersers, accelerate nutrient
recycling rates, increase plant yield and regulate vertebrate parasites (Mittal, 1993;
Andresen, 1999). Significant relationships have been found to exist between the numbers
of mammals at study sites, and the richness of species and individuals of dung beetles
(Estrada et al., 1998).

At the Yachana Reserve there is a unique opportunity to investigate variation in habitat


type and fragmentation upon dung beetle communities. The reserve consists of a
patchwork of varying habitat types, comprising approximately 2000 hectares of
predominantly primary lowland rainforest, in addition to abandoned plantations, grassland,
riparian forest, regenerating forest and a road. The reserve is also a fragment of primary
lowland rainforest in the context of the larger landscape, as it borders an agricultural matrix
on two sides and the Napo River on another.

6.2 Methods

Trials were conducted in order to establish a standardised method for long-term


assessment of the dung beetle community at the Yachana Reserve. A standard method
for trapping dung beetles using baited pitfall traps, recommended by the Scarabaeinae
Research Network, was used throughout all trials. This involved placing two cups, one
inside the other, in the ground with the upper lip flush with the ground, so as to allow
beetles to fall into the trap. Two cups are used so that the upper cup may be removed and
emptied easily. Traps were baited with 20g of fresh mammal dung suspended 5cm above
the trap in a muslin net. A leaf was placed above this to cover the trap in order to protect
the bait from rain. The cup may or may not be filled a third of the way with a preservative
liquid, used to kill captured dung beetles and prevent them from escaping. Ten traps were
placed at any one time in each site, along trails in the forest. Nine separate trials were then
conducted, in three different locations. Each used various combinations of different trap
exposure time, bait type and trap spacing.

6.3 Results
The preliminary results table is shown in Appendix A. Captured individuals from each of
the ten traps were pooled to provide a total ‘catch’ for each sampling period. Catches
varied from between 4 and 298 individuals, although eight of the nine trials harboured 55

29
or less individuals. Species richness of catches varied from one to nine. Species numbers
are all estimates at this stage due to a lack of identification resources. Species were found
which belong to the Genera Canthon, Eurysternus and Deltochilum, amongst others that
have as yet been determined. One catch alone harboured 298 individuals and an
estimated nine species.

6.4 Discussion
One of the first findings of preliminary trials was that the removal of all leaf litter from within
a close proximity of the trap made the pitfall more successful. In the second trial, it
appeared that traps placed on or near slopes were more successful, whereas a later trial
suggested that traps going down a steep slope harboured a lesser yield. These differences
are likely to be due to variation in wind direction or bait detection by beetles, and would
require further investigation to determine the effect of gradients on trap effectiveness.

There appeared to be no major differences in the effectiveness of bait type (horse or


cattle, both readily available from nearby agricultural land). However, bait freshness was
important, and it is recommended that dung bait should be as fresh as possible when
used. If agricultural dung freshness is questionable, then human dung may be used. The
single trap that was baited using a dead frog yielded a species not seen in any of the other
catches, perhaps indicating that this beetle was a carrion specific feeder.

In two of the three trials performed within the secondary forest matrix (Ridge Trail), there
were markedly less individual beetles and beetle species within the catch. Moreover, in the
final trial it was noted that most of the traps located in grassland, which is found in this
secondary matrix, attracted solely one species of beetle.

Trap spacing created apparently little difference in catch yield. Trials conducted using salt
water as a preservative were found to leave specimens smelling horrible, whereas solely
using water and a tiny amount of detergent (to increase surface tension of the water and
therefore prevent beetles from escaping) worked suitably in killing beetles without
specimen quality deteriorating. Using no preservative, in an attempt to undertake live
capture, did not reduce total catch numbers significantly. Trap exposure time remained
constant for all trials in primary forest, but was reduced for those within the secondary
matrix, in order to maximise trap efficiency during live capture.

30
6.5 Conclusion
These preliminary trials have provided some insight into how best to undertake dung
beetle surveys, whilst helping to finalise a pitfall trapping method. Dung bait must be as
fresh as possible and, in accordance with recommendations by Larsen and Forsyth
(2005), will be replaced every 48 hours. Traps will be checked every 24 hours in future,
regardless of whether traps contain preservative or not, in order to maintain consistency
throughout live beetle and specimen collection.

It is proposed that a future dung beetle project will focus on the differences between the
dung beetle communities in the primary rainforest and those in the secondary rainforest
matrix. Grid transects will be established in six separate sites (three in primary forest, three
in secondary matrix), each consisting of nine traps in a 100m2 area, each trap separated
by 50m (Larsen and Forsyth, 2005). Primarily comparisons will be made between the
primary forest and the secondary matrix, using a T-test. Within the secondary matrix,
comparisons can be made between the varying microhabitats (e.g. grassland, riparian
forest and ex-cacao plantation) using an Analysis of Variance test. Similar comparisons
can be made between microhabitat in the primary rainforest present in the Yachana
Reserve.

The project also has scope to contain more ecologically focused study aspects. This may
include examining bait preferences in the dung beetle communities, for example, various
dung types, dung sizes, vertebrate carrion, invertebrate carrion, rotting fruit and fungus.
There is also an opportunity to examine abundance and ranging, through mark and
recapture methods.

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

8 BTEC Advanced Certificate in Supervision of Biological Surveys


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

9 Community Development Projects

9.1 Colegio Técnico Yachana (Yachana Technical High School)


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

Two current students from the Yachana Technical High School also joined the expedition
for three weeks. They participated in all aspects of the expedition and additionally took part
in language exchange sessions with volunteers and staff.

32
9.2 National Scholarship Program
Graduates from the Yachana Technical High School are offered a place on the expedition
as part of a National Scholarship Program. Each week, two or three students become
integral members of the expedition during which time they are involved in all aspects of the
expedition, including survey work, camp duty and satellite camps. Conversation sessions
for language exchange are also arranged between the students and volunteers or staff
members. During phase 091, GVI hosted three students throughout the expedition. The
students are of great assistance during field work, sharing their knowledge about local
uses for plants as well as helping with the scheduled work. They also shared their culture,
teaching traditional basket-weaving, traditional achiote-painting, providing indigenous
language (Quichua and Chachi) and cooking lessons (e.g. empanadas), teaching the uses
of medicinal plants, and demonstrating how to build several animal traps.

9.3 TEFL at Puerto Rico


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

10 Future Expedition Aims

 The biodiversity programme will be continued, opportunistically re-surveying sites, and


expanding the survey areas within the reserve.
 The direction of the avian research program will refocus upon mist netting and a new
project examining the avifauna associated with the road running through the reserve.
 Herpetological research will become more focused and will include the widespread use
of pitfall traps throughout the reserve.

33
 The impact of GVI upon the natural landscape in which it inhabits will continue to be
monitored through a variety of methods.
 A thorough examination of the dung beetle communities found in the reserve will
commence, using grid transects.
 The BTEC course will continue to be offered and run for all interested volunteers.
 GVI will continue to co-ordinate with the Yachana Technical High School, continuing
with various exchanges.
 TEFL at Puerto Rico will continue with a more defined focus for each age group and an
overall aim enabling the students to compose full sentences.

34
11 References

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

Andresen, E., 1999. Seed dispersal by monkeys and the fate of dispersed seeds in the
Peruvian rain forest. Biotropica 31: 145-158.

Buss D. F. & Borges E. L., 2008. ‘Application of Rapid Bioassessment Protocols (RBP) for
Benthic Macroinvertebrates in Brazil: Comparison between Sampling Techniques and
Mesh Sizes.’ Neotropical Entomology 37 (3): 288-295.

Contreras J., Roldán G., Arango A. & Álvarez L.F., 2008. ‘Evaluación de la calidad del
agua de las microcuencas La Laucha, La Lejía y La Rastrojera, utilizando los
macroinvertebrados como bioindicadores, Municipio de Durania, Departamento Norte de
Santander, Colombia.’ Rev. Acad. Colomb. Cienc. 32 (123): 171-193.

Cota, L., Goulart, M., Moreno, P. & Callisto, M. ‘Rapid assessment of river water quality
using an adapted BMWP index: a practical tool to evaluate ecosystem health’. Verh.
Internat. Verein. Limnol. 28: 1-4.

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

Estradsa, A., Coates-Estrada, R., Dadda, A.A. & Cammarano, P., 1998. Dung and carrion
beetles in tropical rainforest fragments and agricultural habitats at Los Tuxtlas, Mexico.
Journal of Tropical Ecology 14: 577-593.

Feinsinger, P., 2001. Designing Field Studies for Biodiversity Conservation. Island Press,
Washington.

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

35
Heyer W.R., Donnelly M.A., McDiarmid R.W., Hayek L.A.C., Foster M.S., 1994. Measuring
and Monitoring Biological Diversity - Standard Methods for Amphibians.

Karr, J.R., 1999. Defining and measuring river health. Freshwater Biology 41: 221-234.

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

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

Larsen, T.H., Forsyth, A., 2005. Trap spacing and transect design for dung beetle
biodiversity studies. Biotropica 37: 322-325.

Lyaruu H.V., Eliapenda S., Backeus I., 2000. Floristic, structural and seed bank diversity of
a dry Afromontane forest at Mafai, central Tanzania. Biodiversity and Conservation 9(2):
241-263.

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

Mittal, I.C., 1993. Natural manuring and soil conditioning by dung beetles. Tropical Ecology
34: 150-159.

Ridgely, R.S., Greenfield, P.J., 2001. The birds of Ecuador. Volume I. Status, Distribution,
and Taxonomy. Cornell University Press, New York.

Scarabaeinae Research Network - http://216.73.243.70/scarabnet/

Spector, S., Forsyth, A.B., 1998. Indicator taxa for biodiversity assessment in the
vanishing tropics. Conservation Biology Series 1: 181-209.

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


Cambridge.

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

36
References used in the field to identify species:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


The University of Kansas, Lawrence.

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

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

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

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

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

Ridgely, R.S., Greenfield, P.J., 2001. The birds of Ecuador. Volume II. A field guide.
Christopher Helm, London.
37
Tirira S., D., 2001. Libro rojo de los mamíferos del Ecuador. SIMBIOE/EcoCiencia, Quito.

38
Appendix A
Dung beetle preliminary research results
Trap
exposure Trap Number of Estimated
time Bait Number spacing beetles number of
Location (hrs) type Preservative of traps (m) caught species Notes
horse salt water and
Ficus 48 dung detergent 10 20 5 1
The most successful traps were near or on slopes
and had the least leaf litter around the trap. 14
collected from trap 40m. Dung appeared fresher
horse salt water and during this session than following and previous
Ficus 48 dung detergent 10 20 28 4+ session.
horse salt water and
Ficus 48 dung detergent 10 20 4 2+
cattle salt water and
Ficus 48 dung detergent 10 20 298 9 Dung very fresh
Cattle dung not as fresh as last time. Some dung
cattle attacked by ants. Fewer beetles found in traps
Bloop 48 dung water and detergent 10 40 41 6 going down main Bloop slope.
One trap containing frog carrion yielded new
species, perhaps carrion specific feeder. Horse
dung was fresher than previously used. Despite
horse no preservative, catch still high and all beetles
Bloop 48 dung none 10 40 55 5 caught alive.
cattle
Ridge 24 dung none 10 50 13 1
cattle
Ridge 24 dung None 10 50 6 2
Five traps were placed in grassland while four in
forest land along ridge trail. Higher abundance of
beetles found along grassland traps however they
were mainly the same 'small metallic green'
horse species. More species variation along the forest
Ridge 24 dung None 10 50 28 6 traps.

39
Appendix B – Species List
BIRDS
SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME
Tinamiformes Columbiformes
Tinamidae Tinamous Columbidae Pigeons and Doves
Crypturellus bartletti Bartlett's Tinamou Claravis pretiosa Blue Ground-Dove
Crypturellus cinereus Cinereous Tinamou Columba plumbea Plumbeous Pigeon
Crypturellus soui Little Tinamou Geotrygon montana Ruddy Quail-Dove
Crypturellus undulatus Undulated Tinamou Leptotila rufaxilla Gray-fronted Dove

Crypturellus variegatus Variegated Tinamou


Psittaciformes
Tinamus major Great Tinamou
Psittacidae Parrots and Macaws
Amazona farinosa Mealy Amazon
Ciconiformes
Amazona ochrocephala Yellow-crowned Amazon
Ardeidae Herons, Bitterns and Egrets
Ara severa Chestnut-fronted Macaw
Ardea cocoi Cocoi Heron
Aratinga leucophthalmus White-eyed Parakeet
Bubulcus ibis Cattle Egret
Aratinga weddellii Dusky-headed Parakeet
Butorides striatus Striated Heron Pionites melanocephala Black-headed Parrot
Egretta caerulea Little Blue Heron Pionopsitta barrabandi Orange-cheeked Parrot
Egretta thula Snowy Egret Pionus menstruus Blue-headed Parrot
Tigrisoma lineatum Rufescent Tiger-Heron Pionus chalcopterus Bronze-winged Parrot
Pyrrhura melanura Maroon-tailed Parakeet
Cathartidae American Vultures
Cathartes aura Turkey Vulture Cuculiformes
Cathartes melambrotus Greater Yellow-headed Vulture Cuculidae Cuckoos and Anis
Coragyps atractus Black Vulture Crotophaga ani Smooth-billed Ani
Sarcoramphus papa King Vulture Crotophaga major Greater Ani
Piaya cayana Squirrel Cockoo
Piaya melanogaster Black-bellied Cuckoo
Falconiformes
Opisthocomidae Hoatzin
Accipitridae Kites, Eagles, Hawks, and Osprey
Opisthocomus hoazin Hoatzin
Buteo magnirostris Roadside Hawk
Buteo polyosoma Variable Hawk
Strigiformes
Elanoides forficatus Swallow-tailed Kite
Strigidae Typical Owls
Harpagus bidentatus Double-toothed Kite
Glaucidium brasilianum Ferruginous Pygmy-Owl
Ictinia plumbea Plumbeous Kite
Lophostrix cristata Crested owl
Leptodon cayanensis Gray-headed Kite Otus choliba Tropical Screech-Owl
Leucopternis melanops Black-faced Hawk Otus watsonii Tawny-bellied Screech-owl
Leucopternis albicollis White Hawk Pulsatrix perspicillata Spectacled owl
Pandion haliaetus Osprey
Caprimulgiformes
Falconidae Falcons and Caracaras Nyctibiidae Potoos
Daptrius ater Black Caracara Nyctibius aethereus Long-tailed Potoo
Falco rufigularis Bat Falcon Nyctibius grandis Great Potoo
Ibycter americanus Red-throated Caracara Nyctibius griseus Common Potoo
Herpetotheres cachinnans Laughing Falcon
Micrastur gilvicollis Lined Forest-Falcon Caprimulgidae Nightjars and Nighthawks
Micrastur semitorquatus Collared Forest-Falcon Nyctidromus albicollis Pauraque
Milvago chimachima Yellow-headed Caracara Nyctiphrynus ocellatus Ocellated Poorwill

Apodiformes
Galliformes
Apodidae Swifts
Cracidae Curassows, Guans, and Chachalacas
Chaetura cinereiventris Grey-rumped Swift
Nothocrax urumutum Nocturnal Curassow
Streptoprocne zonaris White-collared Swift
Ortalis guttata Speckled Chachalaca
Penelope jacquacu Spix's Guan
Trochilidae Hummingbirds
Amazilia franciae cyanocollis Andean Emerald Hummingbird
Odontophoridae New World Quails
Amazilia fimbriata Glittering-throated Emerald
Odontophorus gujanensis Marbled Wood-Quail Anthracothorax nigricollis Black-throated Mango
Campylopterus largipennis Gray-breasted Sabrewing
Charadriiformes Campylopterus villaviscensio Napo Sabrewing
Scolopacidae Sandpipers, Snipes and Phalaropes Eriocnemis vestitus Glowing Puffleg
Actitis macularia Spotted Sandpiper Eutoxeres condamini Buff-tailed Sicklebill
Tringa solitaria Solitary Sandpiper Glaucis hirsuta Rufous -breasted Hermit
Heliothryx aurita Black-eared Fairy
Recurvirostridae Plovers and Lapwings Phaethornis bourcieri Straight-billed Hermit
Hoploxypterus cayanus Pied Plover Phaethornis hispidus White-bearded Hermit
Phaethornis malaris Great-billed Hermit
Gruiformes Thalurania furcata Fork-tailed Woodnymph
Rallidae Rails, Gallinules, and Coots
Anurolimnatus castaneiceps Chestnut-headed Crake
Aramides cajanea Gray-necked Wood-Rail

40
BIRDS continued
SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME
Trogoniformes Corvidae Crows, Jays, and Magpies
Trogonidae Trogons and Quetzals Cyanocorax violaceus Violaceous Jay
Pharomachrus pavoninus Pavonine Quetzal
Trogon melanurus Black-tailed Trogon Vireos, Peppershrikes, and Shrike
Vireonidae Vireos
Trogon viridis Amazonian White-tailed Trogon
Vireo olivaceus Red-eyed Vireo
Trogon collaris Collared Trogon
Trogon rufus Black-throated Trogon
Turdidae Thrushes
Trogon violaceus Amazonian Violaceous Trogon
Catharus ustulatus Swainson's Thrush
Trogon curucui Blue-crowned Trogon
Turdus albicollis White-necked Thrush
Turdus lawrencii Lawrence's Thrush
Coraciiformes
Alcedinidae Kingfishers
Hirundinidae Swallows and Martins
Chloroceryle amazona Amazon Kingfisher
Atticora fasciata White-banded Swallow
Chloroceryle americana Green Kingfisher
Stelgidopteryx ruficollis Southern rough-winged swallow
Chloroceryle inda Green and Rufous Kingfisher
Tachycineta albiventer White-winged Swallow
Megaceryle torquata Ringed Kingfisher

Troglodytidae Wrens
Momotidae Motmots
Campylorhynchus turdinus Thrush-like Wren
Baryphthengus martii Rufous Motmot
Donacobius atricapillus Black-capped Donacobius
Electron platyrhynchum Broad-billed Motmot
Henicorhina leucosticta White-breasted Wood-wren
Momotus momota Blue-crowned Motmot
Microcerculus marginatus Southern Nightingale-Wren
Thryothorus coraya Coraya Wren
Tyrannidae Tyrant Flycatchers
Attila spadiceus Bright-rumped Attila
Polioptilidae Gnatcatchers and Gnatwrens
Conopias cinchoneti Lemon-browed Flycatcher
Microbates cinereiventris Tawny-faced Gnatwren
Conopias parva Yellow-throated Flycatcher
Contopus virens Eastern Wood-Pewee
Parulidae New World Warblers
Hemitriccus zosterops White-eyed Tody-tyrant
Basileuterus fulvicauda Buff-rumped Warbler
Legatus leucophaius Piratic Flycatcher
Dendroica fusca Blackburnian Warbler
Leptopogon amaurocephalus Sepia-capped Flycatcher
Dendroica striata Blackpoll Warbler
Lipaugus vociferans Screaming Piha
Megarynchus piangu Boat-billed Flycatcher
Piciformes
Myiarchus tuberculifer Dusky-capped Flycatcher
Galibulidae Jacamars
Myiarchus ferox Short-crested Flycatcher
Jacamerops aureus Great Jacamar
Myiobius barbatus Whiskered Flycatcher
Myiodynastes maculatus Streaked Flycatcher
Bucconidae Puffbirds
Myiodynastes luteiventris Sulphur-bellied Flycatcher
Chelidoptera tenebrosa Swallow-winged Puffbird
Mionectes oleagineus Ochre-bellied Flycatcher
Bucco macrodactylus Chestnut-capped Puffbird
Myiozetetes granadensis Gray-capped Flycatcher
Malacoptila fusca White-chested Puffbird
Myiozetetes luteiventris Dusky-chested Flycatcher
Monasa flavirostris Yellow-billed Nunbird
Myiozetetes similis Social Flycatcher
Monasa morphoeus White-fronted Nunbird
Ochthornis littoralis Drab Water-Tyrant
Monasa nigrifrons Black-fronted Nunbird
Pachyramphus marginatus Black-capped Becard
Notharchus macrorynchos White-necked Puffbird
Pitangus sulphuratus Great Kiskadee
Rhynchocyclus olivaceus Olivaceous Flatbill
Capitonidae New World Barbets
Rhytipterna simplex Grayish Mouner
Capita aurovirens Scarlet-crowned Barbet
Terenotriccus erythrurus Ruddy-tailed Flycatcher
Capita auratus Gilded Barbet
Tityra cayana Black-tailed Tityra
Eubucco bourcierii Lemon-throated Barbet
Tityra inquisitor Black-crowned Tityra
Tityra semifasciata Masked Tityra
Ramphastidae Toucans
Todirostrum chrysocrotaphum Yellow-browed Tody-Flycatcher
Pteroglossus azara Ivory-billed Aracari
Tolmomyias poliocephalus Gray-crowned Flatbill
Pteroglossus castanotis Chestnut-eared Aracari
Tolmomyias viridiceps Olive-faced Flatbill
Pteroglossus inscriptus Lettered Aracari
Tyrannulus elatus Yellow-crowned Tyrannulet
Pteroglossus pluricinctus Many-banded Aracari
Tyrannus savana Fork-tailed Flycatcher
Ramphastos vitellinus Channel-billed Toucan
Tyrannus tyrannus Eastern Kingbird
Ramphastos tucanus White-throated Toucan
Tyrannus melancholicus Tropical Kingbird
Selenidera reinwardtii Golden-collared Toucanet
Zimmerius gracilipes Slender-footed Tyrannulet
Cotingidae Cotinga
Picidae Woodpeckers and Piculets
Ampelioides tschudii Scaled Fruiteater
Campephilus melanoleucos Crimson-crested Woodpecker
Cotinga cayana Spangled Cotinga
Picidae cont. Woodpeckers and Piculets
Cotinga maynana Plum-throated Cotinga
Campephilus rubricollis Red-necked Woodpecker
Gynnoderus foetidus Bare-necked Fruitcrow
Celeus elegans Chestnut Woodpecker
Iodopleura isabellae White-browed Purpletuft
Celeus flavus Cream-coloured Woodpecker
Querula purpurata Purple throated Fruitcrow
Celeus grammicus Scale-breasted Woodpecker
Chrysoptilus punctigula Spot-breasted Woodpecker
Pipridae Manakins
Dryocopus lineatus Lineated Woodpecker
Chiroxiphia pareola Blue-backed Manakin
Melanerpes cruentatus Yellow-tufted Woodpecker
Chloropipo holochlora Green Manakin
Picumnus lafresnayi Lafresnaye's piculet
Dixiphia pipra White-crowned Manakin
Veniliornis fumigatus Smoky-brown Woodpecker
Lepidothrix coronata Blue-crowned Manakin
Veniliornis passerinus Little Woodpecker
Machaeropterus regulus Striped Manakin
Passeriformes
Manacus manacus White-bearded Manakin
Furnariidae Ovenbirds
Pipra erythrocephala Golden-headed Manakin
Automolus rubiginosus Ruddy Foliage-gleaner
Tyranneutes stolzmanni Dwarf Tyrant Manakin
Philydor pyrrhodes Cinammon-rumped Foliage-gleaner
Sclerurus caudacutus Black-tailed Leaftosser

41
BIRDS continued SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME
Icteridae American Orioles and Blackbirds
SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME
Cacicus cela Yellow-rumped Cacique
Dendrocolaptidae Woodcreepers
Cacicus solitarius Solitary Cacique
Dendrexetastes rufigula Cinnamon-throated Woodcreeper
Clypicterus oseryi Casqued Oropendola
Dendrocincla fuliginosa Plain Brown Woodcreeper
Icterus chrysocephalus Moriche Oriole
Glyphorynchus spirurus Wedge-billed Woodcreeper
Icterus croconotus Orange-backed Troupial
Lepidocolaptes albolineatus Lineated Woodcreeper
Molothrus oryzivorous Giant Cowbird
Xiphorhynchus ocellatus Ocellated Woodcreeper
Psarocolius angustifrons Russet-backed Oropendola
Xiphorhynchus guttatus Buff-throated Woodcreeper
Psarocolius decumanas Crested Oropendola
Xiphorhynchus picus Straight-billed Woodcreeper
Psarocolius viridis Green Oropendola

Thamnophilidae Typical Antbirds


Cercomacra cinerascens Gray Antbird MAMMALS
Chamaeza nobilis Striated Antthrush
Dichrozona cincta Banded Antbird SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME
Marsupialia
Frederickena unduligera Undulated Antshrike
Didelphidae Opossums
Formicarius analis Black-faced Antthrush
Chironectes minimus Water opossum
Hersilochmus dugandi Dugand's Antwren
Didelphis marsupialis Common opossum
Hylophlax naevia Spot-backed Antbird
Marmosa lepida Little rufous mouse opossum
Hylophylax poecilinota Scale-backed Antbird
Micoureus demerarae Long-furred woolly mouse opossum
Hypocnemis cantator Warbling Antbird
Philander sp. Four-eyed opossum
Hypocnemis hypoxantha Yellow-browed Antbird
Myrmeciza hyperythra Plumbeous Antbird
Xenarthra
Myrmeciza immaculata Sooty Antbird
Megalonychidae
Myrmeciza melanoceps White-shouldered Antbird
Subfamily Choloepinae Two-toes sloths
Myrmotherula axillaris White-flanked Antwren
Choloepus diadactylus Southern two-toed sloth
Myrmotherula hauxwelli Plain-throated Antwren
Myrmotherula longipennis Long-winged Antwren
Dasypodidae Armadillos
Myrmotherula ornata Ornate Antwren
Cabassous unicinctus Southern naked-tailed armadillo
Myrmotherula obscura Short-billed Antwren
Dasypus novemcinctus Nine-banded armadillo
Myrmornis torquata Wing-banded Antbird
Myrmothera campanisona Thrush-like Antpitta
Chiroptera
Phlegopsis erythroptera Reddish-winged Bare-eye
Carollinae Short-tailed Fruit bats
Phlegopsis nigromaculata Black-spotted Bare-eye
Pithys albifrons White Plumbed Antbird Carollia brevicauda
Thamnomanes ardesiacus Dusky-throated Antshrike Carollia castanea
Thamnophilus murinus Mouse-colored Antshrike Carollia perspicullatus Short-tailed fruit bat
Thamnophilus schistaceus Plain-winged Antshrike Rhinophylla pumilio Little fruit bat
Schistocichla leucostigma Spot-winged Antbird
Desmodontinae Vampire bats
Tanagers, Honeycreepers, Bananaquit, Desmodus rotundus Common vampire bat
Thraupidae and Plushcap
Chlorophanes spiza Green Honeycreeper Emballonuridae Sac-winged/Sheath-tailed Bats
Cissopis leveriana Magpie Tanager Saccopteryx bilineata White-lined bat
Creugops verticalis Rufous-crested Tanager
Cyanerpes caeruleus Purple Honeycreeper Glossophaginae Long tongued bats
Dacnis flaviventer Yellow-bellied Dacnis Glossophaga soricina Long tongued bat
Euphonia laniirostris Thick-billed Euphonia Lonchophylla robusta Spear-nosed long-tongued bat
Euphonia rufiventris Rufous-bellied Euphonia
Euponia xanthogaster Orange-bellied Euphonia Stenodermatidae Neotropical Fruit bats
Euphonia chrysopasta White-lored Euphonia Artibeus jamaicensis Large fruit-eating bat
Habia rubica Red-crowned Ant-Tanager Artibeus lituratus Large fruit bat
Hemithraupis flavicollis Yellow-backed Tanager Artibeus obscurus Large fruit bat
Piranaga olivacea Scarlet Tanager Artibeus planirostus Large fruit bat
Piranaga rubra Summer Tanager Chiroderma villosum Big-eyed bat
Ramphocelus carbo Silver-beaked Tanager Sturrnia lilium Hairy-legged bat
Ramphocelus nigrogularis Masked Crimson Tanager Sturnria oporaphilum Yellow shouldered fruit bat
Tachyphonus cristatus Flame-crested Tanager Uroderma pilobatum Tent-making bat
Tachyphonus surinamus Fulvous-crested Tanager Vampyrodes caraccioli Great Stripe-faced bat
Tangara callophrys Opal-crowned Tanager
Tangara chilensis Paradise Tanager Phyllostominae Spear-nosed Bats
Tangara mexicana Turquoise Tanager Macrophyllum macrophyllum Long-legged bat
Tangara schrankii Green-and-gold Tanager Mimon crenulatum Hairy-nosed bat
Tangara xanthogastra Yellow-bellied Tanager Phyllostomus hastatus Spear-nosed bat
Tersina viridis Swallow Tanager
Thraupis episcopus Blue-gray Tanager Vespertilionidae Vespertilionid Bats
Thraupis palmarum Palm Tanager Myotis nigricans Little brown bat

Cardinalidae Saltators, Grosbeaks, and Cardinals Primates Monkeys


Cyanocompsa cyanoides Blue-black Grosbeak Callitrichidae
Saltator grossus Slate-colored Grosbeak Saguinus nigricollis Black-mantle tamarind
Saltator maximus Buff-throated Saltator
Cebidae
Emberizidae Emberizine Finches Allouatta seniculus Red howler monkey
Ammodramus aurifrons Yellow-browed Sparrow Aotus sp. Night monkey
Oryzoborus angloensis Lesser Seed-Finch Cebus albifrons White-fronted capuchin
Fringillidae Cardueline Finches
Carduelis psaltria Lesser Goldfinch Carnivora Carnivores
Procyonidae Raccoon
Nasua nasua South american coati
Potos flavus Kinkajou

42
MAMMALS continued SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME
Drepanoides anomalus Amazon Egg-eating snake
SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME
Drymouluber dichrous Common glossy racer
Mustelidae Weasel
Helicops angulatus Banded south american water snake
Eira Barbara Tayra
Helicops leopardinus Spotted water snake
Lontra longicaudis Neotropical otter
Imantodes cenchoa Common blunt-headed tree snake
Imantodes lentiferus Amazon blunt-headed tree snake
Felidae Cat
Leptodeira annulata annulata Common cat-eyed snake
Herpailurus yaguarundi Jaguarundi
Leptophis cupreus Brown parrot snake
Leopardus pardalis Ocelot
Liophis miliaris chrysostomus White-lipped swamp snake
Puma concolor Puma
Liophis reginae Common swamp snake
Oxyrhopus formosus Yellow-headed calico snake
Artidactyla Peccaries and Deer
Oxyrhopus melanogenys Black-headed calico snake
Mazama Americana Red brocket deer
Oxyrhopus petola digitalus Banded calico snake
Tayassu tajacu Collared peccary
Pseustes poecilonotus polylepis Common bird snake
Rodentia Rodents
Pseustes sulphureus Giant bird snake
Echimyidae
Sphlophus compressus Red-vine snake
Dactylomys dactylinus Amazon bamboo rat
Spilotes pullatus Tiger rat snake
Nectomys squamipes Water rat Tantilla melanocephala
Proechimys semispinosus Spiny rat melanocephala Black-headed snake
Xenedon rabdocephalus Common false viper
Sciuridae Squirrels Xenedon severos Giant false viper
Sciurus sp. Amazon red squirrel Xenoxybelis argenteus Green-striped vine snake
Sciurillus pusillus Neotropical pygmy squirrel
Viperidae Vipers
Large Cavylike Rodents Bothriopsis taeniata Speckeled forest pit viper
Agouti paca Paca Bothrops atrox Fer-de-lance
Coendou bicolour Bi-color spined porcupine Lachesis muta muta Amazon Bushmaster
Dasyprocta fuliginosa Black agouti
Hydrochaeirs hydrochaeirs Capybara Boidae Boas
Myoprocta pratti Green acouchy Boa constrictor imperator Common boa constrictor
Corallus enydris enydris Amazon tree boa

REPTILES Epicrates cenchria gaigei Peruvian rainbow boa

SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME Elapidae

Lizards Micurus hemprichii ortonii Orange-ringed coral snake


Gekkonidae Micrurus langsdorfii Langsdorffs coral snake
Gonatodes concinnatus Collared forest gecko Micrurus lemniscatus Eastern ribbon coral snake
Gonatodes humeralis Bridled forest gecko Micrurus spixii spixxi Central amazon coral snake
Micurus surinamensis
Pseudogonatodes guianensis Amazon pygmy gecko surinamensis Aquatic coral snake

Gymnophthalmidae Crocodilians
Alopoglossus striventris Black-bellied forest lizard Alligatoridae
Arthrosaura reticulata reticulata Reticulated creek lizard Paleosuchus trigonatus Smooth-fronted caiman
Cercosaura ocellata
Leposoma parietale Common forest lizard
Neusticurus ecpleopus Common streamside lizard
Prionodactylus argulus Elegant-eyed Lizard
Prionodactylus oshaughnessyi White-striped eyed lizard
AMPHIBIANS
Iguanas
Caecilians
Hoplocercidae
Typhlonectidae
Enyalioides laticeps Amazon forest dragon
Caecilia aff. tentaculata

Polychrotidae
Plethodontidae Lungless Salamanders
Anolis fuscoauratus Slender anole
Bolitoglossa peruviana Dwarf climbing salamander
Anolis nitens scypheus Yellow-tongued forest anole
Anolis ortonii Amazon bark anole
Bufonidae Toads
Anolis punctata Amazon green anole
Rhinella marina Cane Toad
Anolis trachyderma Common forest anole
Rhinella complex margaritifer Crested Forest Toad
Rhinella dapsilis Sharp-nosed Toad
Tropiduridae
Tropidurus (Plica) plica Collared tree runner
Dendrophryniscus Leaf Toads
Tropidurus (plica) umbra
ochrocollaris Olive Tree Runner Dendrophryniscus minutus Orange bellied leaf toad

Teiidae Centrolenidae Glass Frogs


Kentropyx pelviceps Forest whiptail Centrolene sp. undescribed Glass Frog
Tupinambis teguixin Golden tegu Cochranella anetarsia Glass Frog
Cochranella midas Glass Frog
Colubridae Snakes Cochranella resplendens Glass Frog
Atractus elaps Earth snake sp3
Atractus major Earth snake Dendrobatidae Poison Frogs
Atractus occiptoalbus Earth snake sp2 Ameerega bilinguis
Chironius fuscus Olive whipsnake Ameerega ingeri Ruby Poison Frog
Chironius scurruls Rusty whipsnake Ameerega insperatus
Clelia clelia clelia Musarana Ameerega zaparo Sanguine Poison Frog
Dendriphidion dendrophis Tawny forest racer Colostethus bocagei
Dipsas catesbyi Ornate snail-eating snake Colostethus marchesianus Ucayali Rocket Frog
Dipsas indica Big-headed snail-eating snake Dendrobates duellmani Duellmans Poison Frog

43
AMPHIBIANS continued
SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME
INVERTEBRATES
Hylidae Tree Frogs
SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME
Cruziohyla craspedopus Amazon Leaf Frog
Moths
cf. Sphaenorhychus carneus Pygmy hatchet-faced Tree Frog
Thysania Agrippina White Witch
Dendropsophus bifurcus Upper Amazon Tree Frog
Urania leilus Green Urania
Dendropsophus marmorata Neotropical Marbled Tree Frog
Rothschildia sp. Window-winged Saturnian
Dendropsophus rhodopeplus Red Striped Tree Frog
Dendropsophus triangulium Variable Clown Tree Frog
Hemiptera
Hemiphractus aff. Scutatus Casque-headed Tree Frog
Dysodius lunatus Lunate Flatbug
Hyla lanciformis Rocket Tree Frog
Hylomantis buckleyi
Grylloptera
Hylomantis hulli
Panacanthus cuspidatus Spiny Devil Katydid
Hypsiboas boans Gladiator Tree Frog
Hypsiboas calcarata Convict 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
Coleoptera
Osteocephalus leprieurii Common bromeliad Tree Frog
Euchroma gigantea Giant Ceiba Borer
Osteocephalus planiceps Flat-headed bromeliad Tree Frog
Homoeotelus d'orbignyi Pleasing Fungus Beetle
Trachycephalus resinifictrix Amazonian Milk Tree Frog
Phyllomedusa tarsius Warty Monkey Frog
Phyllomedusa tomopterna Barred Monkey Frog
Phyllomedusa vaillanti White-lined monkey Tree Frog
Scinax garbei Fringe lipped Tree Frog
Scinax rubra Two-striped Tree Frog
Trachycephalus venulosus Common milk Tree Frog

Microhylidae Sheep Frogs


Chiasmocleis bassleri Bassler's Sheep Frog

Leptodactylidae Rain Frogs


Edalorhina perezi Eyelashed Forest Frog
Prystimantis acuminatus Green Rain Frog
Prystimantis aff peruvianus Peruvian Rain Frog
Prystimantis altamazonicus Amazonian Rain Frog
Prystimantis conspicillatus Chirping Robber Frog
Prystimantis lanthanites Striped-throated Rain Frog
Prystimantis malkini Malkini's Rain Frog
Prystimantis martiae Marti's rainfrog
Prystimantis ockendeni complex Carabaya Rain Frog
Prystimantis sulcatus Broad-headed Rain Frog
Prystimantis variabilis Variable Rain Frog
Hypnodactylus nigrovittatus Black-banded Robber Frog
Strabomantis sulcatus Broad-headed Rain Frog
Engystomops petersi Painted Forest Toadlet
Leptodactylus andreae Cocha Chirping Frog
Leptodactylus knudseni Rose-sided Jungle Frog
Leptodactylus mystaceus
Leptodactylus rhodomystax Moustached Jungle Frog
Leptodactylus wagneri Wagneris Jungle Frog
Lithodytes lineatus Painted Antnest Frog
Oreobates quixensis Common big headed Rain Frog
Vanzolinius discodactylus Dark-blotched Whistling Frog
Ranidae True Frogs
Rana palmipes Neotropical Green Frog

44
BUTTERFLIES
SCIENTIFIC NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME
Morphinae Riodinidae
Nymphalinae Ithomiinae
Morpho Achilles Amarynthis meneria
Anartia amathae Aeria eurimidea
Morpho deidamia Ancyluris endaemon
Anartia jatrophae Ceratinia tutia
Morpho helenor Ancyluris aulestes
Baeotus deucalion Eueides isabella
Morpho Menelaus Ancyluris etias
Bia actorion Eueides lampeto
Morpho peleides Anteros renaldus
Biblis hyperia Eueides lybia
Morpho polycarmes Calospila cilissa
Callicore cynosura Hyposcada anchiala
Calospila partholon
Callizona acesta Hyposcada illinissa
Acraeinae Calospila emylius
Catonephele acontius Hypothyris anastasia
Actinote sp. Calydna venusta
Catonephele esite Hypothyris fluonia
Emesis fatinella
Catonephele numilia Ithomia amarilla
Papilionidae Emesis lucinda
Colobura dirce Ithomia salapia
Battus belus varus Emesis ocypore
Consul fabius Mechanitis lysimnia
Battus polydamas Eurybia dardus
Diaethria clymena Mechanitis mazaeus
Papilio androgeus Eurybia halimede
Dynamine aerata Mechanitis messenoides
Papilio thoas cyniras Eurybia unxia
Dynamine arthemisia Methona confusa psamathe
Parides aeneas bolivar Hyphilaria parthenis
Dynamine athemon Methone cecilia
Parides Lysander Isapis agyrtus
Dynamine gisella Oleria Gunilla
Parides pizarro Ithomiola floralis
Eresia pelonia Oleria ilerdina
Parides sesostris Lasaia agesilaus narses
Eunica alpais Oleria tigilla
Lasaia pseudomeris
Eunica amelio Tithorea harmonia
Satyrinae Leucochimona vestalis
Eunica volumna
Chloreuptychia herseis Livendula amaris
Hamadryas albicornus Limenitidiae
Cithaerias aurora Livendula violacea
Hamadryas arinome Adelpha amazona
Cithaerias menander Lyropteryx appolonia
Hamadryas chloe Adelpha cocala
Cithaerias pireta Mesophthalma idotea
Hamadryas feronia Adelpha cytherea
Euptychia binoculata Mesosemia loruhama
Hamadryas laodamia Adelpha erotia
Euptychia ocypete Mesosemia latizonata
Historis odius Adelpha iphicleola
Haetera macleania Napaea heteroea
Historis acheronta Adelpha iphiclus
Haetera piera Nymphidium mantus
Hypna clytemnestra Adelpha lerna
Hermeuptychia hermes Nyphidium nr minuta
Marpesia berania Adelpha melona
Magneuptychia libye Nymphidium lysimon
Marpesia petreus Adelpha mesentina
Magneuptychia ocnus Nymphidium balbinus
Metamorpha elisa Adelpha messana
Pareuptychia ocirrhoe Nymphidium caricae
Metamorpha sulpitia Adelpha naxia
Pierella astyoche Nymphidium chione
Nessaea batesii Adelpha panaema
Pierella hortona Pandemos pasiphae
Nessaea hewitsoni Adelpha phrolseola
Pierella lamia Perophtalma lasus
Nica flavilla Adelpha thoasa
Pierella lena Pirasica tyriotes
Panacea prola Adelpha viola
Pierella lucia Rhetus arcius
Paulogramma peristera Adelpha ximena
Taygetis mermeria Rhetus periander
Phyciodes plagiata
Sarota chrysus
Phrrhogyra amphiro Charaxinae
Limenitidinae Sarota spicata
Pyrrhogyra crameri Agrias claudina
Doxocopa agathina Setabis gelasine
Pyrrhogyra cuparina Archaeoprepona amphimachus
Doxocopa griseldis Stalachtis phaedusa
Pyrrhogyra otolais Archaeoprepona demophon
Doxocopa laurentia Synargis orestessa
Siproeta stelenes Archaeoprepona demophon muson
Doxocopa linda Archaeoprepona licomedes
Smyrna blomfildia
Temenis laothoe Memphis arachne
Heliconinae Memphis oenomaus
Tigridia acesta
Dryas iulia Memphis philomena
Prepona eugenes
Eueides Eunice
Pieridae Prepona dexamenus
Heliconius erato
Appias Drusilla Prepona laertes
Heliconius melponmene
Dismorphia pinthous Prepona pheridamas
Heliconius numata Zaretis isidora
Eurema cf xanthochlora
Heliconius sara Zaretis itys
Peirhybris lorena
Heliconius xanthocles
Phoebis rurina
Laparus doris Lycaenidae
Celmia celmus
Philaethria dido
Brassolinae
Janthecla sista
Caligo eurilochus Thecla aetolius
Caligo idomeneus idomeneides Thecla mavors
Caligo illioneus
Caligo placidiamus
Catoblepia generosa
Catoblepia sorannus
Catoblepia Xanthus
Opsiphanes invirae

45
Appendix C

Yachana Reserve, Napo

Columbia Laguna

Stream 1

Caimencocha
Laguna

Frontier

Green Inferno

Stream 1

Bloop
PC17

Bloop
Swamp

Inca
Cascada Stream 1

Road

Cascada Stream Stream 1

Ficus

Agua Santa

Ridge and Road

N - Ridge trail Access Routes

Ridge

Rio Napo
GVI Base Camp

46