Global Vision International 2010 Report Series No.


GVI Ecuador
Rainforest Conservation and Community Development

Phase Report 101 Friday 8th January – Friday 19th March

GVI Ecuador/Rainforest Conservation and Community Development Expedition Report 101 ` Submitted in whole to Global Vision International Yachana Foundation Museo Ecuatoriano de Ciencias Naturales (MECN) Produced by Chris Beirne – Field Manager Oliver Burdikin – Field Staff Simon Mitchell –Field Staff and
Craig Herbert Jill Robinson Jasmine Rowe Laura Jones Thomas Smith Rachel Adler Bianca Amato Stef DuFresne Anna Flanagan Alistair Gorden James Mallard Benny Mansfield Robert McCann Valerie Mills Prashant Mistry Scholar Scholar Scholar Intern Intern Volunteer Volunteer Volunteer Volunteer Volunteer Volunteer Volunteer Volunteer Volunteer Volunteer Katherine Parker Skylar Senti Rachel Smith Hugo Sykes Amelia Wheeler Roberth Alvarado Christian Andi Javier Andy Marianna Conforme Richard Dahua Abel Kunchicuy Christian Vega Mauricio Andi Volunteer Volunteer Volunteer Volunteer Volunteer High school student High school student High school student High school student High school student High school student High school student High school graduate

Edited by Karina Berg – Country Director GVI Ecuador/Rainforest Conservation and Community Development Address: Casilla Postal 17-07-8832 Quito, Ecuador Email: Web page: and

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 2010 from Friday 8th January to Friday 19th March, GVI has: • Added three new species to the reserve list; Ornate Hawk-eagle (Spizaetus ornatus), Hog-nosed Pitviper (Bothrops hyoprora), and the Neotropical marbled Frog (Hyla maromaratus). • • Continued assesseing the effect of habitat change in understory bird communities. Continued to collect data on the effect of structural habitat change on the

amphibian and reptile communities, using pitfall trapping and visual encounter surveys. • Continued with a project investigating the effects of disturbance from the road upon

butterfly communities. • • Continued to sample dung beetles within different habitats around the reserve. Continued with English lessons for local school children in Puerto Rico twice a

week. • • Continued giving English classes at Puerto Salazar whenever possible. Welcomed four pasantias (work experience students) from the Yachana Technical

High School to join the expedition, in order to exchange language skills, knowledge and experience. • Visited Yasuní National Park and Sumak Allpa, an island reserve and school run by

a local conservationist. • Continued helping the local organisation Amanecer Campisino with their projects in

the local region.



List of Figures ................................................................................................................. 5 1 Introduction................................................................................................................ 6 2 Avian Research ......................................................................................................... 9 2.1 Avian Mistnetting................................................................................... 9 3 Mammal Incidentals................................................................................................. 15 4 Herpetological Research.......................................................................................... 15 4.1 The Effect of Structural Habitat Change on Herpetofaunal Communities................................................................................................ 15 5 Butterfly Research ................................................................................................... 20 5.1 Assessment of Antropogenic Disturbance on Butterfly Communities... 20 6 Dung Beetle Research............................................................................................. 25 6.1 Assessment of the Impact of Structural Habitat Change on Dung Beetle Assemblages .................................................................................... 25 7 Community Development Projects ........................................................................... 34 7.1 Colegio Técnico Yachana (Yachana Technical High School) .............. 34 7.2 TEFL at Puerto Rico............................................................................ 34 7.3 English Classes at Puerto Salazar ...................................................... 35 8 Future Expedition Aims............................................................................................ 35 9 References .............................................................................................................. 36 9.1 General References ............................................................................ 36 9.2 Field Use References.......................................................................... 37 9.3 Dung Beetle References ..................................................................... 38 9.4 Amphibian References ........................................................................ 39 9.5 Butterfly References............................................................................ 42 10 Appendix A - GVI Species List ................................................................................. 43 10.1 Class Aves .......................................................................................... 43 10.2 Class Mammalia.................................................................................. 46 10.3 Class Sauropsida ................................................................................ 47 10.4 Class Amphibia ................................................................................... 48 10.5 Class Arachnida .................................................................................. 49 10.6 Class Insecta ...................................................................................... 49 11 Appendix B – GVI Yachana Reserve Map ............................................................... 53


List of Figures
Figure 2.1.1 Figure 2.1.2 Fig. 2.1.3 Fig. 2.1.4 Figure 4.1.1 Figure 4.1.2 Figure 4.1.3 Figure 4.1.4 Figure 5.1.1 Figure 5.1.2 Figure 5.1.3 Figure 5.1.4 Figure 6.1.1 Figure 6.1.2 Figure 6.1.3 Figure 6.1.4 Figure 6.1.5 Map showing the location of each mistnetting site Summary information regarding vegetation mapping of each mist-netting site Summary Mist-netting Information for Phase 101 Summary Mist-netting Information for Phase 094 Number of individuals found in pitfalls in 101 Number of individuals found on visual encounter surveys in 101 Number of individuals found in pitfall traps in total in the project so far Number of individuals found in total for visual encounter surveys in the project so far New standardised dot codes introduced in week 6 of Phase 101 Number of species and individuals trapped at each trap site Average number of species and individuals encountered at each site Number of species recorded at each trap in the forest and trail areas Habitat type of each dung beetle sampling site Trap layouts at each site Habitat compared to individuals captured Individuals identified to species Comparison of habitat to species richness




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

GVI Amazon Rio Napo, Napo Province

Fig. 1.1


stone and gravel based road which dissects the primary forest to the north and the abandoned cacao plantations and grassland areas to the south. The Yachana Foundation is dedicated to finding sustainable solutions to the problems facing the Ecuadorian Amazon region. The foundation works with rainforest communities to improve education, develop community-based medical care, establish sustainable agricultural practices, provide environmentally sustainable economic alternatives, and conserve the rainforest. The Yachana Reserve is the result of the foundation’s efforts to purchase blocks of land for the purpose of conservation. The Yachana Foundation has a long-term plan of sustainable management for the reserve according to International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) protected forest guidelines and guidelines laid out by the Ministerio del Ambiente (Ecuadorian Ministry of the Environment). One of GVI’s main roles at the reserve is to provide support where deemed necessary for the development of the management plan. This includes reserve boundary determination, baseline biodiversity assessments, visitor information support, and research centre development. GVI also works closely with the Yachana Technical High School, a unique educational facility for students from the surrounding region. The high school provides students with meaningful education and practical experience in sustainable agriculture, animal husbandry, conservation, eco-tourism, and small business operations. As part of their experiential learning program, students use the Yachana Reserve and GVI’s presence as a valuable educational tool. As part of their conservation curriculum, the students visit the reserve to receive hands on training in some of GVI’s research methodology, as well as familiarization with ecological systems. On a rotational basis, students spend time at the reserve where they participate in the current research activities, and receive conversational English classes from GVI volunteers. GVI additionally conducts TEFL classes (Teaching English as a Foreign Language) at the nearby village of Puerto Rico, twice a week. Classes are prepared the day before and last for one hour. Groups of two or three volunteers conduct the classes, covering relevant topics to the local school children. This allows GVI to integrate with the local community, whilst giving volunteers the opportunity to experience firsthand involvement in community development through teaching English. This is also currently laying the foundation to introduce environmental education programmes to the Puerto Rico community in the future. 7

GVI also works with local research institutions. The Museo Ecuatoriano de Ciencias Naturales, MECN, (Ecuadorian Museum for Natural Sciences) provides technical assistance with field research and project development. The museum is a government research institution which houses information and conducts research on the presence and distribution of floral and faunal species throughout Ecuador. GVI obtains their investigation permit with the support of MECN for the collection of specimens. The data and specimens collected by GVI are being lodged with the MECN in order to make this information nationally and internationally available, and to provide verification of the field data. MECN technicians are continuously invited to the Yachana Reserve to conduct in-field training and education for GVI and Yachana students, as well as explore research opportunities otherwise unavailable. A major goal for GVI’s research is to shift focus from identifying species in the reserve to collecting data for management concerns and publication. In collaboration with all local and international partners, GVI focuses its research on answering ecological questions related to conservation. With this in mind, several key goals have been identified:

Cataloguing species diversity in the Yachana Reserve in relation to regional


• •

Conducting long-term biological and conservation based research projects. Monitoring of biological integrity within the Yachana Reserve and the immediate surrounding area.

• • • •

Publication of research findings in primary scientific literature. Solicitation of visiting researchers and academic collaborators. Identification of regional or bio-geographic endemic species or sub-species. Identification of species that are included within IUCN or Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) appendices.

• • •

Identification of keystone species important for ecosystem function. Identification of new species, sub-species, and range extensions. Identification of charismatic species that could add value in promoting the Yachana Reserve to visitors.

In order to achieve the key goals, volunteers participate in five or ten weeks of each phase and are trained by GVI personnel to conduct research on behalf of the local 8

partners in support of their ongoing work. This report summarises the scientific research and community-based programmes conducted during the ten-week expedition from Friday 8th January to Friday 19th March 2010, at the Yachana Reserve.


Avian Research
2.1 Avian Mistnetting

Introduction As human populations grow, an understanding of anthropogenic change is essential to understand the conservation of the natural world. Habitat loss is undoubtedly one of the greatest threats facing tropical forest diversity (Hawes et al. 2008), with over half the potential tropical closed-canopy forest, defined as tree crown coverage exceeding 60%, having already been removed and put to other use (Wright 2005). However, there is hope. 2005). Despite deforestation reaching alarming levels, 15% of the land deforested in the 1990s has been reclaimed by natural secondary succession (Wright This large scale expansion of secondary landscapes may have important The total implications for long-term conservation of wildlife (Faria et al, 2007).

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


performed before the true value of secondary regenerating forest can be unequivocally determined.

There is currently a lack of consensus between many studies examining the impacts of habitat change on bird communities. Despite birds being the most studied and understood taxa in the Neotropics, a recent review of literature found that, pre-2008; only 17 studies examined the value of secondary forest for tropical birds (Barlow et al. 2006). The majority of studies conducted to date have concluded that secondary forests can support equivalent or high levels of species richness compared to primary or relatively undisturbed forest (Barlow et al, 2006). Despite these encouraging results, there are a whole host of problems with the existing studies which make a strong conclusion of the value of secondary forest for Neotropical birds impossible to determine (Gardner et al. 2006). For example, several of the studies attribute the high species richness to the close proximity of primary habitat, resulting in primary species being transiently recorded in secondary habitat. Several studies also lacked a good primary forest baseline with which to compare their results (Barlow et al. 2006). This aims to address the problems highlighted by Gardner et al (2007), to compare understory bird communities in the disturbed secondary patches of the Yachana Reserve with the relatively undisturbed patches. Method Study Plots Four net locations were established around the reserve; two in relatively disturbed areas, two in relatively undisturbed areas (see fig. 2.1.1). The net locations were no closer than 500m apart at their nearest point as Barlow and Peres (2004) concluded, based on recaptures of marked individuals, that plots 500m apart were spatially independent. The net locations are restricted to trails within the reserve, as the hilly topography makes establishing nets in other locations impossible without destroying large areas of native vegetation. Plots are random with respect to tree fall gaps, fruiting trees or other factors which may influence capture rates. Mistnetting Understory mistnetting was used to examine the avifauna at each of the four sites within the reserve. Each site was sampled for 66 to 69 hours between the 18th of January 2010 and the 10th March 2010. Four 12x2.5m mist nets with 10-40m spacing (to allow for difficult topography) were established at each site. All nets could be checked within a 10-15min period. Captured birds were then released away from the 10

net locations from an established banding station. Nets were opened between 6.30am and 11.10am for four successive days, allowing extra hours or days to account for periods of persistent wind or heavy rain. Nets were checked every 30 minutes. All captures were placed in a bird bag and returned to the banding station where they were be identified to species, banded, weighed, measured and sexed whenever possible. All birds were banded to identify recaptures, except hummingbirds, which have extremely delicate legs. Figure. 2.1.1 Map showing the location of each mist netting site

Represents the locations of each mist-netting site within the Yachana Reserve. The pink dots represent the ‘less disturbed’ sites of Laguna and Frontier, whilst the green dots represent the ‘more disturbed’ sites of Cascada and Ficus. The blue circles represent required site separation outlined by Barlow and Perez (2004) to ensure the sites are independent. Vegetation Mapping Around each mist-netting site six 100m transects were assessed. Each transect started 250m away from the mist-netting center point and ended 150m away from the center point, and were spaced evenly to avoid psuedoreplication. The transects were stratified and placed randomly with regard to topography and habitat. Along each transect, five canopy coverage estimations were made by two independent observers and the dominant type of canopy was noted (Absent, Low, Middle and High). All Melostomatacae and Heliconidae within 5m either side of the transect line were 11

counted. All trees >30cm Diameter at Breast Height (DBH) were measured within 5m either side of the transect line. The presence or absence of trees of the genus Theobroma and coffee plants were also noted. Results Vegetation Profiling Vegetation profiling was performed in the week immediately following each mist netting session (see Fig. 2.1.2). The numbers of Melostomacae varied from 156 (Cascada) to 1393 (Ficus). Number of flowing Heliconidae varied from 20 (Laguna) to 124 (Cascada). Coffee showed the most marked difference between the sites from two (Laguna) to 3230 individuals (Ficus). Cascada and Laguna were dominated by high canopy (63.3-90%) whereas Ficus and Frontier sites were predominantly mid-canopy. However, only Cascada and Ficus were found to have gaps in their canopies. The canopy cover measurement is inconclusive; with all sites spread from 42-53%. The largest tree located was on the Cascada site; however Frontier had the largest average DBH measurement. Finally, twelve freshly cut tree trunks were found at the Ficus site, indicating strong human disturbance.
Fig. 2.1.2
Canopy Cover (%)


Number of Plants

Canopy Class (%)

Five largest trees DBH


Melo Cascada Ficus Laguna Frontier 156 1393 664 812

Heli. 124 15 20 30

Coffee 924 3230 2 6

High 63.3 23.3 90 40

Mid 26.7 56.6 10 53.3

Low 3.3 13.3 0 6.7

Gap 6.7 6.7 0 0 42 51 53 50

1 143 96 105 128

2 92 90 96 111

3 82 90 81 106

4 80 86 79 99

5 79 76 76 89 12 Stumps

Figure 2.1.2 Summary information regarding vegetation mapping of each mist-netting site.

The strongest differences observed between the sites were the presence of >900 individuals of coffee at Cascada and Ficus with canopy gap compositions of 6.7%. In comparision Laguna and Frontier contained <7 individual coffee plants and had a 0% canopy gap composition. On the basis of these results Cascada and Ficus are classified as ‘more disturbed’ and Laguna and Frontier are classified as ‘less disturbed’. Avifaunal Sampling In Phase 101 (Fig. 2.1.3) 127 birds were captured in 269 hours of mist-netting between the dates of 18th of January 2010 and the 10th March 2010. Individuals caught at each 12

site varied from eleven individuals to 35. Each site was subjected to between 66 hours and 68.3 net hours of sampling. The total number of individuals captured in the ‘more disturbed’ areas was 23, whereas the total number of individuals captured in the ‘less disturbed’ areas was 57. The number of species captured at the ‘less disturbed’ sites was also lower that captured in the ‘more disturbed’ sites (see Fig. 2.1.3). The understory birds caught at each of the ‘more disturbed’ areas represented only five different bird families, where as birds caught at the ‘less disturbed’ areas each represented by eleven and nine different bird families. Capture efficiencies, represented by number of individuals per mist net hour, where also higher in the ‘less disturbed’ sites (0.32 and 0.52 indiv.h-1) in comparison to the ‘more disturbed’ sites (0.18 and 0.17 indiv.h-1).

Fig. 2.1.3 Summary mist-nettingiInformation for Phase 101 More disturbed Less Disturbed Cascada Ficus Laguna Frontier Net Hours 67.28 66.28 68.30 67.10 Number of Individuals 12 11 22 35 Individuals per net hour 0.18 0.17 0.32 0.52 Total Num. of species 8 7 15 20 Species per net hour 0.12 0.11 0.22 0.30 Total Num. of famillies 6 4 10 11 Fig. 2.1.4 Summary mist-nettingiInformation for Phase 094 More disturbed Less Disturbed Cascada Ficus Laguna Frontier Net Hours 69.16 68.88 69.20 64.00 Number of Individuals 27 13 39 48 Individuals per net hour 0.39 0.19 0.56 0.75 Total Num. of species 14 8 17 20 Species per net hour 0.20 0.12 0.25 0.31 Total Num. of famillies 5 5 11 9

Total 269 80 0.30 30 0.11 16

Total 271 127 0.47 33 0.12 16

Direct comparison of summary mist-netting information from Phases 094 (Fig. 2.1.4) and 101 (Fig. 2.1.3) shows that the total numbers of individuals caught per phase has decreased from 127 in phase 094 to 80 in phase 101. Previously noted trends that there is lower species diversity and fewer individuals in the ‘more disturbed’ locations are consistent between phase 094 and phase 101.


Discussion Vegetation Profiling Using the vegetation mapping methods, in-field observation and map consultation; Laguna and Frontier have been classified as ‘less disturbed’ whereas Cascada and Ficus have been classified as ‘more disturbed’. The crucial differences appear to be absence/presence of coffee plants and canopy gaps, however, more data must be collected before these results can be confirmed. Understory Mist-netting Several differences between the ‘less disturbed’ and ‘more disturbed’ sites have been observed. These include: number of species caught, number of individuals caught, number of families represented, and percentage of individuals of a given family caught at each site. However, the current sample size of 207 birds is completely prohibitive of any statistically relevant analysis. The differences observed could be due to but not limited to: genuine differences in understory bird community richness and structure in each area, seasonal variations in bird foraging patterns, different weather conditions, or simply a function of the low number of birds in the data set. The only way to begin to address these potential factors is to increase the size of data set through repeated sampling at each study site until enough data is obtained. Until that point, any conclusions will be simply speculation. The comparison of phase data from Phase 094 to Phase 101 is interesting. There was a clear drop in the number of individuals caught at all sites. This could be due to seasonal fluctuations in weather, local food availability effects or the disturbance caused by the mist-netting method itself. It will be interesting to see if this trend continues as this project moves into its next phase. The number of different species caught at each site remained consistent, which would indicate that the observed drop is in the number of individuals only – not a decrease in diversity. Future Work Both the understory mist-netting and vegetation mapping will be continued in their current forms as they appear to be functioning effectively.



Mammal Incidentals

Introduction GVI continues to document mammal species activity in the reserve predominately through incidental mammal and track sightings. This is confined to incidental recordings due to the low occurrence of conspicuous diurnal mammals. Excessive mammal surveying has proved to not be sufficiently productive. Methods All mammal species encountered outside of specific mammal surveys were recorded. Incidental sightings can take place during any of the other survey or project work within the reserve, or during long walks into the forest. At the occurence of each incidence, the time, location, date, species, and any other key characteristics or notes are taken and later entered into a database in camp. Sightings During this phase various mammal species were recorded incidentally, whilst groups were participating in other survey work or walks in the forest. Incidental sightings included encounters with the Amazon Red Squirrel (Sciurus sp.), Black Agouti (Dasyprocta fuliginosa), Black-mantled Tamarins (Saguinus nigricollis), Coatis (Nasua nasua), Kinkajou (Potos flavus), Night Monkeys (Aotus sp.), Common Opossum (Didelphis marsupialis), Water Opossum (Chironectes minimus) and Water Rat (Nectomys squamipes), Paca (Agouti paca). Also recorded were various unidentified small rodents found in the amphibian pitfall traps.


Herpetological Research
4.1 The Effect of Structural Habitat Change on Herpetofaunal Communities

Introduction One of the key drivers of worldwide species loss is habitat change; defined as habitat deforestation, fragmentation and deterioration (Urbina-Cardona, 2008). The rapid rate of forest conversion in the Neotropics has been offset by large-scale expansion of secondary forest, plantation and pastureland (Wright SJ, 2005; Gardner et al. 2007b). Despite the increasingly dominant role of these degraded habitats in the tropical landscape, there is little consensus within the scientific community about the extent of its conservation value (Gardner et al. 2007c, Lo-Man-Hung1, et al. 2008). Wright & Muller-Landau (2006) predict that the future loss of primary forest will be offset by regenerating secondary forest and consequently suggest that the predicted loss of 15

species due to habitat change may be premature. However, there is currently a lack of empirical evidence to support the theory that regenerating forests can fully support native forest species (Gardner 2007c). Two recent multiple taxa assessments, conducted on the cubraca cacao plantations of Bahia, Brazil (Pardini et al. IN PRESS) and eucalyptus plantations of the Jari forestry project, Brazil (Barlow et al. 2007), found that responses to structural habitat change were taxon specific. Barlow et al. (2007) found that four of the fifteen taxa analysed (trees and lianas, birds, fruit feeding butterflies, and leaf litter amphibians) were found to decrease in species richness with increasing habitat disturbance. However, five taxa (large mammals, epigiec arachnids, lizards, dung beetles and bats) exhibit idiosyncratic responses to habitat change (Barlow et al. 2007). Both studies concluded that responses to structural habitat change will be species specific, not simply taxon specific. Analysis of a generalised taxon response is likely to hide a higher level of species specific disturbance responses which are important when designing conservation strategies (Barlow et al 2007; Pardini et al. 2009). These studies highlight the importance of performing multiple taxa assessments that are species specific relating to the conservation value of secondary and plantation forests. Problem Statement The Neotropics are estimated to contain nearly 50% of the worlds amphibians (IUCN, 2007) and 32% of the worlds reptiles (Young et al. 2004), this equates to over 3000 species of each taxon. Within the continental Neotropics, the 17 countries in Central and South America, there are 1685 species of amphibian and 296 species of reptiles considered endangered. Amphibians and reptiles are considered to be the most threatened groups of terrestrial vertebrates (J. Gardner 2007b). There have been many factors implicated in threatening populations of amphibians and reptiles, including habitat loss and change, the virulent Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis pathogen, climate change (Whitfield et al. 2007), ultraviolet-B radiation (Broomhall et al. 2000), and agrochemical contaminants (Bridges et al. 2000). Current State of Amphibian and Reptile Research Amphibians and reptiles are important primary, mid-level and top consumers in Neotropical ecosystems; therefore, it is important to understand the responses of these organisms to structural habitat change (Bell et al. 2006). Despite its apparent severity, the amount of research time given to studying the impacts of habitat change on amphibian and reptile populations is relatively low. This is especially true in the 16

Neotropics which, despite an estimated 89% of threatened species being affected by habitat loss, has only been the subject of 10% of the world’s herpetological studies (Gardner et al 2007a). There is a general consensus amongst herpetologists that the effect of structural habitat change on determining amphibian and reptiles and distributions is limited (Pearman, 1997; Krishnamurthy, 2003; Urbina-Cardona, 2006; Gardner et al, 2007b). A recent global scale review of the state of amphibian and reptile research regarding structural habitat change highlighted several serious deficiencies: i) There is currently a strong study bias away from the Neotropics towards North America and Australia. ii) Published studies report contradictory responses of amphibian and reptile populations to habitat change. iii) There are several common limitations in study methodology and analysis (Gardner et al. 2007a). Aims of the Research

Assess the ability of secondary forest (abandoned cacao plantation) to preserve leaflitter herpetofaunal richness, distribution and abundance in comparison to primary forest habitat.

• •

Understand the effects of structural habitat change within the Neotropics. Identify the responses of different herpetofaunal groups/species to structural habitat change.

Methods In Phase 101, data was collected between 16th January to10th March 2010. Nocturnal and Diurnal Visual Encounter Surveys Twelve 75m transects in both the primary and secondary locations were established. Care was taken to space transects sufficiently to avoid psuedoreplication. Transects were marked with coloured transect tape to avoid unnecessary habitat modification. Where possible, the transects were located at least 10m from streams and 100m from forest edges to avoid biases resulting from increases in species richness and abundance, which could result in confusion about the true effect of structural habitat change on amphibian and reptile diversity.

Visual encounter surveys have been shown to be one of the most effective methods for sampling tropical herpetofaunas (Bell et al, 2006). They have been repeatedly shown to yield greater numbers of individuals per effort than other sampling methods in recent 17

publications (Ernst and Rodel, 2004; Donnelly et al 2005) and GVI’s own preliminary investigations. Each transect was searched by six observers (strip width = 6m, duration = 1h 30m). Pitfall Trapping Twelve pitfall arrays were also established in both primary and secondary forest. Each array consists of four 25L buckets with 8m long by 50cm high plastic drift fence connecting them in linear shaped design. When open, the pitfalls were checked at once a day. Particular care was taken to ensure that sampling effort is equal for both primary and secondary habitats. This ensures maximum comparability in the resultant data sets. Any amphibians or reptiles encountered through either method were identified in the field using available literature and released. Any individual which could not be identified was taken back to the GVI base camp for further analysis. A small proportion of the captured individuals, including those that could not be identified, were anaesthetised with Lidocaine and fixed with 10% formalin. All preseserved specimens are stored at the Museo Ecuatoriano de Ciencias Naturales (MECN). Surveying primary rainforest habitat is a privileged opportunity; however there is the potential to negatively affect the ecosystem by passing infections between sites and species. Good practices are strictly adhered to so as to ensure transmissions are not possible. This is achieved by systematic cleaning of tools, equipment, and sterile bags are changed when handling different individuals. Under no circumstances did amphibians or reptiles come in contact with exposed human skin tissue. Results Species Encountered in 101 During this phase, 284 identified reptile and amphibian individuals were encountered, comprising 19 species of amphibian and 16 species of reptile. Pitfalls in Phase 101 Figure 4.1.1 Number of individuals found in pitfalls in Phase 101 Amphibians and reptiles Total 163 132 31 18 Amphibians Reptiles

Visual Encounter Surveys in Phase 101 Figure 4.1.2 Number of individuals found on visual encounter surveys in Phase 101 Amphibians and reptiles Total
(approx 1080 mins survey time with 5/6 searchers)






Species Encountered Overall in the Project So Far: During the whole project to date, 1479 identified reptile and amphibian individuals have been encountered. Pitfalls Figure 4.1.3 Number of individuals found in pitfall traps in total in the project so far Amphibians and reptiles Total 701 589 122 Amphibians Reptiles

Visual Encounter Surveys Figure 4.1.4: Number of individuals found in total for visual encounter surveys in the project so far Amphibians and reptiles Total
(approx 5760 mins survey time with 5/6 searchers)






Discussion The amphibian and reptile work continues to provide a wealth of species which are continuing to show that some species are more prevalent than others and there are certainly some differences in the numbers and types of species found within different areas of the reserve. The amphibians Ameerga bilinguis, Pristimantis kichwarum, Pristimantis lanthanites, Bolitoglossa peruvianus (Dwarf-climbing Salamander) and the lizard Lepsoma parietale are still found in greater numbers than other species at various habitat types around the reserve.


It should be noted that Pristimantis ockendeni has recently been identified as three different species and the species found within this reserve has been identified as Pristimantis kichwarum. This identification has been made by observations of morphological features and verification of photographs by specialists working on the initial identification of these species. The methods used within the past ten weeks will continue into the next phase so that changes in species assemblages can be observed over an annual period of time. The resultant analysis which will be used when a greater amount of data has been gathered will involve multivariate analysis such as principal component analysis and also decision tree analysis that may be applied to the development of a model used to determine the types of amphibians and reptiles found in specific habitat types.


Butterfly Research
5.1 Assessment of Antropogenic Disturbance on Butterfly Communities

Introduction Butterflies are widely regarded as important ecological indicators due to dependence of the larval stage on a specific host plant, combined with adult pollinating roles (Ehrlich and Raven, 1965). Herbivorous species are considered to indicate the diversity and health of their habitats as they may closely reflect patterns of diversity in, as well as disturbances to, plant species (DeVries and Walla, 1999; Sparrow et al. 1993). Due to this, they may be used to predict patterns in other taxonomic groups. Road systems sharply define and fragment forest ecosystems, resulting in changes to plant species composition and structure from road edges to the surrounding interior (Bennett, 1991). The presence of roads and trails opens up the forest canopy, creating light gaps, modifying plant communities and resources available for other species. Butterfly communities have been shown to be sensitive to environmental variables, such as sunlight, gaps and edges (Ramos, 2000). Sparrow et al. (1994) found 74% more butterfly species along a road transect than in undisturbed forest. The Yachana Reserve comprises approximately 1000 hectares of predominantly primary lowland rainforest in addition to a matrix of abandoned plantations, grassland, 20

riparian and regenerating forest. A road 15m wide runs through the middle of the reserve, connecting it to the surrounding agricultural landscape. In addition to this, there are a number of trails on either side of the road which are walked regularly by individuals and groups of up to eight volunteers. This presents an excellent opportunity to investigate the effects of disturbance from the road, in addition to making paired comparisons between disturbed trails and nearby undisturbed forest transects. Sparrow et al. (1994) recommend including both disturbed and undisturbed habitat types in monitoring programs investigating butterfly community variation. Method Data collection continued on the established series of 200m transects on the Columbia and Frontier Trails. The same sampling sites located every 50m continued to be monitored. The Columbia and Frontier Trails run roughly perpendicular to the road and receive heavy usage from GVI volunteers, Yachana tourtists and locals. Each sampling site was paired with an undisturbed site located 75m perpendicular to the trail in the forest to assess the impact of the trails on fruit-feeding nymphalid butterfly communities. Traps 1-10 were located on Frontier while traps 11-20 were on Columbia. Odd numbered traps were on the trails while the even numbered traps were in the forest. As in the previous phases of the study, two baited traps were suspended with the base hanging approximately 1.5 meters above the ground at each sampling site. The traps were baited and maintained for 14 consecutive days and checked daily in the afternoon. New bait was added to the traps on the third day of sampling. The bait, consisting of mashed, fermented bananas, was prepared following the methods of DeVries and Walla (1999). Captured butterflies were identified in the field by GVI volunteers and staff. When identification in the field was not possible, photos of the specimen where taken and/or the specimen was brought back to camp for further study. During previous phases of study butterflies had been marked on the hindwing with non-toxic permanent marker and replaced in the traps in order to measure escape rates. Although marking in order to measure recapture rates has continued since the initiation of the project, the dot codes used to refer to different traps have been inconsistent, rendering a long period of recapture data unusable. This resulted from unexpected 21

changes in staff members running the project in phase 101. The dot code used during the first six weeks of phase 101 was not standardised between observers and recaptures of butterflies initially caught during this period show inconsistent dot code markings. During the latter part of Phase 101 a standardised dot code was introduced (Fig.5.1.1). Since nymphalidae and other detritivorous tribes can have a life span of three to six months (Florida Museum Of Natural History, 2010; Turner 1971) recapture data should be considered unsafe for the next phase and carefully monitored until no further discrepancies from the new dot codes are noted.

Figure 5.1.1The new standardised dot codes introduced in week six of Phase 101. It is worth noting that although specific dot-code data is unreliable all butterflies caught continued to be marked before release. Therefore it will continue to be possible to differentiate between recaptures and newly-caught individuals and hence avoid any pseudo-replication. Since data collection to explore escape rates and the nymphalid-vegetation relationship had both been undertaken at the outset of the project it was not necessary to undertake further vegetation mapping or escape experiments. Results Overall 187 individuals of at least 36 different species were captured over the two 14day periods with an additional twelve species still awaiting identification confirmation. Only one new species was confirmed for the Yachana Reserve species list – Caligo 22

euphorbas, however, several of the specimens awaiting identification were also suspected to be new to the reserve species list. Some preliminary analysis all the data collected since the initiation of the project was attempted, with the aim of elucidating some of the original trends sought in the initial project proposal, namely the difference in the butterfly communities in areas of varying levels of disturbance. Figure 5.1.2 displays the number of species and number of individuals caught in each trap since the beginning of the project.

Trap Type Trail Trail Trail Trail Trail Trail Trail Trail Trail Forest Forest Forest Forest Forest Forest Forest Forest Forest

Trap Number 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

Total Number of Species Trapped 13 16 13 15 17 9 13 19 9 10 21 19 17 19 15 16 14 12

Total Number of Individuals Trapped 18 31 31 39 38 17 28 38 22 18 41 28 35 35 27 23 23 20

Fig. 5.1.2 Number of species and individuals trapped at each trap site.

Locations Forest Average Forest Standard Deviation Trail Average Trail Standard Deviation

Number of Species 15.8 3.5 13.7 3.3

Number of Individuals 27.7 7.7 29.1 8.5

Fig 5.1.3 Average number of species and individuals encountered at each site.


A greater diversity of butterflies was found in the undisturbed forest locations. However, the number of individuals averaged marginally higher in traps on the disturbed trails. The averages for both undisturbed forest and disturbed trails are displayed in the table and graph below (Fig 5.1.3, Fig. 5.1.4).
Number of Species Recorded in Each Trap in Forest and Trail Areas



Number of Species




ai l

ai l

ai l

ai l

ai l

ai l

ai l

ai l

ai l





Fo re

Fo re

Fo re

Fo re

Fo re

Fo re

Fo re

Fo re





Figure 5.1.4 Number of species recorded at each trap in the forest and trail areas. Discussion The two two-week periods of capture were marked by significantly lower capture levels than in previous phases (187 individuals over the 28 days in comparison with 184 individuals in only 14 days during 094b). This was thought to be mainly due to changes in the weather linked with a change into the wet season (more periods of heavy rainfall), since it is know that butterflies alter their levels of activity according to climatic conditions (Clench, 1966) with rainfall also reducing population (Hamer et al., 2003). It was also speculated that slight changes in the practice of banana bait preparation may have affected the attractiveness of the bait used. The methodology devised by Devries & Walla (1999) will be followed exactly from this point forward in order to rule out any bias from quality of bait. More species were recorded in undisturbed forest sites that disturbed trail sites although this is not currently a strong enough trend to be statistically significant. Several studies have found the opposite of this; that more disturbed habitats tend to hold great diversity of butterflies (Hamer et al. 2003). However, anthropological 24

Fo re











disturbance (rather than natural disturbance) has been shown to be negatively correlated with butterfly diversity in certain forest habitats (Brown & Frietas, 2000). Further data and more statistically robust analysis are required before the trends tentatively identified by the analysis here can be confirmed, it will also be necessary to check the data fit a normal or log-normal distribution. On average marginally more individuals have been recorded from trail-base traps than undisturbed forest, although this was such a minimal difference that it seems unlikely to be significant even once further data are collected. . This project will continue using the same methods as initially set out in the project proposal (Brimble, 2009) next phase to acquire a larger sample size. Specimens and photos of the unidentified species have been retained for future identification.


Dung Beetle Research
6.1 Assessment of the Impact of Structural Habitat Change on Dung Beetle Assemblages

Introduction Dung beetles (Order Coleoptera, Family Scarabaeidae, Subfamily Scarabaeinae) are particularly vulnerable to habitat fragmentation and changes in habitat and fauna, this sensitivity allows them to be extremely useful as indicators of ecosystem health (Halffter et al. 1992; Klein 1989). For these reasons their use as indicator species for Neotropical habitat disturbance research has increased in recent years. An omnipresent component of tropical biotas, dung beetles perform constructive ecosystem functions. Dung beetles are primarily associated with mammals; they are indicators of mammalian abundance and possibly diversity. Nevertheless, dung beetles’ functions in ecological systems go far beyond the status of an indicator. 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). (Hanski & Cambefort 1991; Halffter & Matthews 1966; Estrada et al. 1991). Due to their influence, the decline in dung beetle abundance and diversity may have cascading effects on the environment. Habitat fragmentation is one of the most widespread and pervasive human activities impacting upon the earth’s dwindling tropical rainforest habitats. Fragmentation 25

reduces total habitat area and creates subpopulations of species which are isolated from one another, in turn disrupting individual and population behaviour (Hanski et al., 1995). In addition, exchange of genes between populations, species interactions and subsequently ecological processes are reduced (Aizen & Feinsinger, 1994; Saunders et al., 1991). Fragmentation also modifies physical conditions, creating habitat edges that are different from habitat interiors (Diamond, 1975). It has been estimated that the area of Amazonian rainforest modified by such edge effects exceeds the area that has been cleared by felling (Skole & Tucker, 1994). Regeneration and restoration of forests through conservation efforts may mitigate some current deforestation; however, a number of major obstacles still constrain rainforest regeneration. According to several studies, the most significant factor in regeneration is the transport of seeds to deforested sites (Young et al.1987, Pannell 1989, Nepstad et al. 1991, Buschbacher et al. 1992, Chapman & Chapman 1999, Holl 1999). Monitoring dung beetle assemblages in their associated habitats is essential in conservation projects that aim to maintain the regeneration ability of forest fragments, and ecosystem health (Andresen, 2003). This study aims to survey dung beetles in tropical rainforest forest fragments located in the Ecuadorian Amazon at the Yachana Reserve, to examine the effects of habitat fragmentation on species diversity and abundance of these beetles. This research addresses two main questions in the study at the reserve: (1) Does habitat, isolation, or the density of trees of a fragment affect species richness, and abundance? (2) Does fragmentation, isolation, or tree density affect the abundance of the dominant species? Methods Study Site All research was performed directly on, or in the area immediately surrounding, the Yachana Reserve (see Appendix B). The road within the Yachana reserve is a large stone and gravel based road which dissects the primary forest to the north and the abandoned cacao plantations to the south. A growing body of research suggests that roads can have a negative impact on species diversity (Cushman et al. 2006). Roads can decrease dispersal, reduce genetic diversity and increase mortality. These affects were considered when interpreting any data obtained. 26

Nine sites were chosen at random and marked throughout the Yachana Reserve during Phase 092, 2009. Each site contained four baited pitfall traps, each positioned on the corner of a 50m x 50m grid (refer to Figure 6.1.2), in order to minimize trap interference and the effect of wind upon trap detectability (Larsen and Forsyth, 2005). Five sites were placed within primary rainforest and four within the secondary matrix. This allowed direct comparisons to be made between these two habitat types (refer to Fig 6.1.1). Individual trap catches were pooled together for each site. Two sites were exposed at one time (a trapping station from the primary forest and a trapping station from the secondary matrix), in random combinations, so as to minimize the effect of weather variability upon overall catch data. During the Phase 101 each trapping site was sampled for 48 hours (apart from DB5 and DB9, sampled for only 24 hours), at trapping stations spread throughout the habitat matrices. Traps were emptied every 24 hours. Each 24-hour sample from a trap was considered a single trap day. Trapping periods lasted 48 hours in most cases. Beetles were identified by the author and confirmed with assistance of specialists from the Museo Ecuatoriano de Ciencias Naturales (MECN) in Quito. Beetles measuring ≥ 13 mm were considered as large. Voucher specimens are temporarily held at GVI’s workstation within the Yachana Reserve.


Habitat Type
Primary rainforest/Less disturbed Primary rainforest/Less disturbed Primary rainforest/Less disturbed Primary rainforest/Less disturbed Primary rainforest/Less disturbed Secondary rainforest Grassland with intermittent trees, bordered by secondary forest Grassland with intermittent trees, bordered by secondary forest Recovering Cacao plantation

Figure 6.1.1 Habitat type of each dung beetle sampling site


Figure 6.1.2 Trap layouts at each site Each pitfall trap is constructed of a 16oz plastic container, baited with a dung ball suspended above it. Containers were placed in a hole dug in the ground so that the top was flush with the surrounding soil, allowing beetles to fall into the trap. All leaf litter and vegetation was removed in a 25cm radius around each trap, as this was found during preliminary investigations to affect trap efficiency (See Phase Report 091). Traps were filled with an inch of water containing scent-free liquid detergent in order to increase viscosity, to prevent beetles from escaping. Fresh dung, used as bait, was collected from a horse on the morning of baiting the traps. 50cc of bait was suspended in muslin netting 5cm above the lip of each trap, held in place by string and suspended at the end of an angled stick placed in the ground. A plate was positioned 5cm above the top of the bait ball using three upright sticks, in order to prevent rain and beetles from landing directly on the dung bait. Habitat Feature Mapping Species occupy a particular habitat for breeding because the habitat contains certain environmental factors that allow a species to carry out its life history (Hilden 1965, James et al. 1984). Vegetation structure is of considerable importance to dung beetle species habitat (MacArthur and MacArthur 1961, Hilden 1965, James 1971, Cody 1981, 1985). Some dung beetle species are specifically adapted to a vegetation structure that meets their foraging requirements (Hilden 1965, Robinson and Holmes 28

1982, Cody 1985). To accurately assess dung beetle behavior, a thorough knowledge of the vegetation structure of the habitats that they occupy is critical. In most studies of habitat selection, the vegetation structure of occupied sites is compared to unoccupied sites and sampling is usually done in one general location within a species range (e.g., Haggerty 1986, 1998, Dunning and Watts 1990, Plentovich et al. 1998). Although this method may indicate the major features that determine occupancy, it does not necessarily indicate those features that may be the most critical for occupancy. An alternative approach, and the one used in this study, is to compare the vegetation structure of occupied sites from a broad geographic perspective (James et al. 1984). If it is assumed that a species have similar foraging and nest-site selection behaviors throughout its range, then we can expect to see similarities in the vegetation structure of different localities, even though other variables (e.g., floristics, tree age, management practices) may be different. Similarities and differences in the vegetation structure from different localities may help identify structural features that are more or less critical for occupancy, respectively. Further, this approach may give a better understanding of the vegetation structure that may constrain the distribution of a species (James et al. 1984, Parrish 1995). Vegetation profiling of nine sites within the Yachana Reserve was performed in October 2009. Vegetation mapping was performed at each pitfall trap on a transect station. To ensure an appropriate level of independence, data from sample circles for each site were pooled and the site was used as the sample unit in all statistical analyses. Seven variables were measured at each trapping location using the methods of James and Shugart (1970) and Wiens (1973) (Table 1). A sample grid was created, placed directly over the desired pitfall trap location. Grid lines were extended 15 feet, in each of the four cardinal directions. Quadrants (I-IV) were established to ensure the most accurate data recording. Tree (dbh [greater than] 15 cm) density was determined by counting and measuring the number of live and dead trees within the sample plot. Percent canopy and understory canopy coverage were determined by estimation. Vegetation density was measured by counting the number of vegetation hits along the quadrant tape markers placed on the ground. Percent woody, shrub, grass, and litter 29

covers were estimated by noting if these vegetation types came in contact with a vertically held rod that was placed at ten equally spaced points. Litter depth was measured within 6 cm of the base of a vertically held measurement tool. Soil samples were taken at four different locations within the established quadrants and were then characterized and classified using the USCS (Unified Soil Classification System). Results and Discussion Habitat Structure Currently the disturbance status of each site has been estimated through on-site observation and examination of the reserve map, however this simply is not reliable enough. The importance of vegetation structure in determining patterns of species diversity and abundance is well established (Hawes et al. 2008). Vegetation mapping of each trapping station has been completed but is not incorporated in this report. Pitfall Trap Sampling During Phase 101 the baited pitfall traps captured a total of 2121 individuals comprised of 18 identifiable species and eight genera within 384 hours of trapping. Sampling occurred from January 8, 2010 to March 19, 2010. Two of the sites (DB5 and DB9) were sampled for only 24 hours due to a limitation of resources. In order to make these sites comparable, the average percentage decline in the number of trapped beetles between 24 and 48 hours was calculated for each habitat type using the available data. This average percentage decline was then applied to the number of trapped individuals within 24 hours to extrapolate how many may have been caught had the traps been open for 48 hours. The highest catch yielded 706 individuals comprised of ten different identifiable species within a 48 hour trapping period, located within the primary forest (DB4). The lowest catch yielded four individuals, comprised of two different identifiable species after a 48 hour trapping period (DB3) within the primary undisturbed forest (Figure 6.1.3).


Secondary Primary Undisturbed
DB1- Ficus DB2- Upper B-loop DB3- Inca DB4- Upper Frontier DB5- Ficus (road)

18 363 4 706 144 (167*)

DB6- Ridge DB7- Buena Vista DB8 -Buena Vista DB9 -Cacao Grove

179 234 124 349 (534)*





Trap open for 24 hours, extrapolated total for 48 hours given in brackets

Figure 6.1.3: Habitat compared to individuals captured The primary, undisturbed habitat shows a greater variance in the number of individuals caught at each site from the lowest number of individuals caught (4) to the highest (706). In order to draw conclusions from the data it is necessary to identify beetles to species level. This was not possible in all cases due to the complexity of the field of dung beetle taxonomy. However, Figure 6.1.4 below presents the data regarding only those individuals identified to species. The most commonly found species across both habitat types was Eurysternus caribaeus. Overall, more identifiable beetles were found in the primary habitats, yet the number of individuals trapped in secondary habitats was greater than that of primary habitats. This may suggest greater species diversity within secondary habitats. However, seven of the identifiable species found within primary habitats were not found in secondary habitats. These included Onthophagus pubresas, Deltochilum granulatum and Eurysternus hypocrita.


Figure 6.1.4 Individuals identified to species


Identified to Species

Habitat Trap Number Canthidium sp. Aff. Histrio Canthon luteicollis Deltochilum granulatum Dichotomius ahaus Dichotomius concicollis Dichotomius preitoi Eurysternus caribaeus Eurysternus confusus Eurysternus foedus Eurysternus hypocrita Eurysternus inflexus Eurysternus plebejus Onthophagus acuminates Onthophagus haematopus Onthophagus nyctopus Onthophagus oere Onthophagus onareo Onthophagus pubresas 0 2 0 0 0 1 4 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0

Primary – Undisturbed Secondary - Disturbed Totals DB2 DB3 DB4 DB5 DB6 DB7 DB8 DB9 Primary Secondary 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 8 0 14 1 3 3 0 2 28 8 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 3 0 5 2 1 0 0 0 12 1 28 0 115 76 37 3 1 44 260 85 15 0 1 33 0 4 2 7 49 13 6 0 7 2 4 3 2 1 19 10 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 26 1 53 9 11 3 6 5 101 25 1 1 0 0 1 22 12 0 4 35 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 11 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 18 7 31 0 0 5 21 0 0 54 58 75 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 6 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0


Number Site Primary- Undisturbed Ficus Upper Bloop Inca Upper Frontier Ficus (road) Mean number of Species Secondary –Disturbed Ridge Buena Vista Buena Vista Cacao Grove Mean number of Species Figure 6.1.5 Comparison of habitat to species richness Habitat Specificity and Assemblage Similarity 9 7 5 6 6.75 6 11 2 10 8 7.4 Identified



Early results of this study offer an interesting comparison with the effects of primary undisturbed forest and disturbed – secondary forests on Neotropical dung beetle assemblages. In contrast to what was predicted, primary – undisturbed rainforest and secondary – disturbed rainforest habitats are representing large zones of mixing or gradation of dung beetle assemblages, unlike the assumption of an abrupt assemblage turnover between habitats. When averaging the total number of species captured in each habitat, the primary - undisturbed habitat held 7.4 identifiable species while the secondary - more disturbed habitat averaged at 6.75 identifiable species per location. There appears to be little difference between species richness when comparing the two habitats. However, there are differences in species richness in trapping stations within the same habitat type (refer to Figure 6.1.5). Habitat crossover in the associated beetle fauna may suggest that most dung beetles in the community not completely habitat specialists and possibly host specialists. Local variation in 33

abiotic factors such as soil texture, moisture, and forest structure do influence the occurrence and relative abundance of scarabaeines (Howden & Nealis 1975, 1978; Halffter & Edmonds 1982); however thus far data suggests the former. It is understood that conclusions are qualitative due to missing data and the problem of identifying beetles to species level. Owing to problems identifying dung beetles down to the species level, this project will now be post-poned until further field guides become available.


Community Development Projects
7.1 Colegio Técnico Yachana (Yachana Technical High School)

GVI continues to work closely with the Yachana Technical High School. Seven current students from the Yachana Technical High School joined the expedition for a period of five weeks each. They participated in all aspects of the expedition, including survey work, camp duty and satellite camps. Conversation sessions for language exchange were also arranged between the students and GVI volunteers and/or staff. The students are of great assistance during field work, sharing their knowledge about local uses for plants as well as helping with the scheduled project work. They share their culture with volunteers and allow a greater insight into their background, teaching traditional basket-weaving, traditional achiote-painting. The benefits to the students are large, as they learn about the realities of conserving and managing a reserve first-hand, along with the techniques used for monitoring different speices. They also get to practise and improve their conversational English language skills for an extended period of time, during the field work, but also around base camp. This sort of shared practical learning experience is invaluable in the developing world and those students who have the opportunity and interest to join GVI for a period of time (whether it be two weeks of longer periods), make great progress in their English language as well as having the opportunity to experience inter-cultural exchange with native English speakers from different parts of the globe. It is hoped that these exchanges will continue in the future as they are beneficial to GVI volunteers, staff and of course to the students themselves. 7.2 TEFL at Puerto Rico

Fifteen English classes were given at Puero Rico this phase. This resulted in 60 ‘volunteer hours’ of teaching, to 22 older students (7-13 years old) and 14 younger students (4-7 years old). The next expedition will see the continuation of these lessons, augamneted by an occasional tropical ecology class given at the end of each five weeks. The English lessons and 34

interaction with the Puerto Rico community has had the long term aim of developing and encorporating environmental education for the children at the school. This part of the interaction will begin in Phase 102, but due to the level of understanding of English, this part of the teaching will need to be presented in Spanish. 7.3 English Classes at Puerto Salazar

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


Future Expedition Aims
The biodiversity programme will be continued, opportunistically re-surveying sites, and expanding the survey areas within the reserve. Avian research will continue, focusing on mist netting. Herpetological research will continue, repeating pitfall trapping and visual encounter surveys, and incorporating the collection of environmental data (temperature, humidity, air flow and light levels) at each of the surveying sites, so that specific climatic conditions can be compared. The butterfly project will continue, examining the effects of road and trail disturbance upon fruit feeding species, in relation to changes in vegetation. GVI will continue to participate in exchanges with the Yachana Technical High School. TEFL at Puerto Rico will continue with a defined focus for each ten week block, for each age group and the aim is to encourage students to put their learning into practise and get them conversing in English. Simple environmental lesson will begin at the school in Puerto Rico (to be given in Spanish). 35

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


9.1 General References

Allen, T., Ginkbeiner, S.L., and Johnson, D.H., 2004. Comparison of detection rates of breeding marsh birds in passive and playback surveys at Lacreek National Wildlife refuge, South Dakota. Waterbirds 27, 277-281. Bennett, A. F., 1991. Roads, roadsides and wildlife conservation: A review. In: Saunders, D. A., Hobbs, R. J. (eds.). Nature Conservation 2: The role of corridors. Chipping Norton, NSW, Australia: Surrey Beatty 99-118. Daszak, P., Berger, L., Cunningham, A.A., Hyatt, A.D., Green, D.E., Speare. R., 1999. Emerging infectious diseases and amphibian population declines. Emerging Infectious Diseases. 5, 735-48. Ehrlich, P. R., Raven, P. H., 1965. Butterflies and plants: A study in co-evolution. Evolution 18: 586-608. Gardner T.A., Fitzherbert E.B., Drewes R.C., Howell K.M., Caro T., 2007. Spatial and temporal patterns of abundance and diversity of an east African leaf litter amphibian fauna. Biotropica 39(1):105-113. Heyer W.R., Donnelly M.A., McDiarmid R.W., Hayek L.A.C., Foster M.S., 1994. Measuring and Monitoring Biological Diversity - Standard Methods for Amphibians. Kroodsma, D.E., 1984. Songs of the Alder Flycatcher (Empidonax alnorum) and Willow Flycatcher (Empidonax traillii) are innate. Auk 101, 13-24.


Lacher, T., 2004. Tropical Ecology, Assessment, and Monitoring (TEAM) Initiative: Avian Monitoring Protocol version 3. Conservation International, Washington, DC. Menendez-Guerrero P.A., Ron S.R. and Graham C.H., 2006. Predicting the Distribution and Spread of Pathogens to Amphibians. Amphibian Conservation 11:127-128. Ridgely, R.S., Greenfield, P.J., 2001. The birds of Ecuador. Volume I. Status, Distribution, and Taxonomy. Cornell University Press, New York. Sutherland, W.J., 1996. Ecological census techniques: a handbook. University press, Cambridge. Weldon, C., du Preez, L.H., Hyatt, A.D., Muller, R., Speare, R., 2004. Origin of the amphibian chytrid fungus. Emerging Infectious Diseases. 10 (Issue 12). 9.2 Field Use References

Bartlett, R.D., Bartlett, P., 2003. Reptiles and amphibians of the Amazon. An ecotourist’s guide. University Press of Florida, Gainsville. Bollino, M., Onore G., 2001. Butterflies & moths of Ecuador. Volume 10a. Familia: Papilionidae. Pontificia Universidad Católica del Ecuador, Quito. Carrera, C., Fierro, K., 2001. Manual de monitoreo los macroinvertebrados acuáticos. EcoCiencia, Quito. Carrillo, E., Aldás, S., Altamirano, M., Ayala, F., Cisneros, D. Endara, A., Márquez, C., Morales, M., Nogales, F, Salvador, P., Torres, M.L., Valencia, J., Villamarín, F., Yánez, M., Zárate, P., 2005. Lista roja de los reptiles del Ecuador. Novum Milenium, Quito. de la Torre, S., 2000. Primates of Amazonian Ecuador. SIMBIOE, Quito. DeVries, P.J., 1997. The butterflies of Costa Rica and their natural history. Volume II: Riodinidae. Princeton University Press, Princeton. 37

Duellman, W.E., 1978. The biology of an equatorial herpetofauna in Amazonian Ecuador. The University of Kansas, Lawrence. Eisenberg, J.F., Redford, K.H., 1999. Mammals of the Neotropics: The central Neotropics. Volume 3 Ecuador, Peru, Bolivia, Brazil. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Emmons, L.H., Feer, F., 1997. Neotropical rainforest mammals. A field guide, second edition. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Moreno E., M., Silva del P., X., Estévez J., G., Marggraff, I., Marggraff, P., 1997. Mariposas del Ecuador. Occidental Exploration and Production Company, Quito. Neild, A.F.E., 1996. The butterflies of Venezuela. Meridain Publications. London. Ridgely, R.S., Greenfield, P.J., 2001. The birds of Ecuador. Volume I. Status, distribution and taxonomy. Christopher Helm, London. Ridgely, R.S., Greenfield, P.J., 2001. The birds of Ecuador. Volume II. A field guide. Christopher Helm, London. Tirira S., D., 2001. Libro rojo de los mamíferos del Ecuador. SIMBIOE/EcoCiencia, Quito. 9.3 Dung Beetle References

Aizen, M. A. & Feinsinger, P. (1994). Forest fragmentation, pollination and plant reproduction in Chago dry forest, Argentina. Ecology 75: 330-351. Andresen, E. (1999). Seed dispersal by monkeys and the fate of dispersed seeds in the Peruvian rain forest. Biotropica 31: 145-158. Diamond, J. M. (1975). The island dilemma: lessons of modern biogeographic studies for the design of natural reserves. Biological Conservation 7: 129-146.


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. Hanski, I., Pakkala, T., Kuussaari, M. & Lei, G. (1995). Metapopulation persistence of an endangered butterfly in a fragmented landscape. Oikos 72: 21-28. Larsen, T. H. and Forsyth, A. (2005). Trap spacing and transect design for dung beetle biodiversity studies. Biotropica 37: 322-325. Mittal, I. C. (1993). Natural manuring and soil conditioning by dung beetles. Tropical Ecology 34: 150-159. Saunders, D. A., Hobbs, R. J. & Margules, C. R. (1991). Biological consequences of ecosystem fragmentation: a review. Conservation biology 5: 18-32. Skole, D. L. & Tucker, C. (1994). Tropical deforestation and habitat loss fragmentation in the Amazon: satellite data from 1978-1988. Science 260: 1905–1910. Spector, S. & Forsyth, A. B. (1998). Indicator taxa for biodiversity assessment in the vanishing tropics. Conservation Biology Series 1: 181-209. 9.4 Amphibian References

J. Barlow, T. A. Gardner, I. S. Araujo, T. C. Avila-Pires, A. B. Bonaldo, J. E. Costa, M. C. Esposito, L. V. Ferreira, J. Hawes, M. I. M. Hernandez, M. S. Hoogmoed, R. N. Leite, N. F. LoMan-Hung, J. R. Malcolm, M. B. Martins, L. A. M. Mestre, R. Miranda-Santos, A. L. NunesGutjahr, W. L. Overal, L. Parry, S. L. Peters, M. A. Ribeiro-Junior, M. N. F. da Silva, C. da Silva Motta, and C. A. Peres (2007) Quantifying the biodiversity value of tropical primary, secondary, and plantation forests PNAS vol. 104 no. 47 18555–18560 Beebee, T.J.C., Griffiths, R.A., (2005). The amphibian decline crisis: A watershed for conservation biology? Biological Conservation 125, 271–285.


K. E. Bell and M. A. Donnelly (2006) No. 6, 1750–1760

Influence of Forest Fragmentation on Community

Structure of Frogs and Lizards in Northeastern Costa Rica Conservation Biology Volume 20,

Bridges, C.M., Semlitsch, R.D., (2000). Variation in pesticide tolerance of tadpoles among and within species of Ranidae and patterns of amphibian decline. Conservation Biology 14, 1490– 1499. Broomhall, S.D., Osborne, W.S., Cunningham, R.B. (2000). Comparative effects of ambient ultraviolet-B radiation on two sympatric species of Australian frogs. Conservation Biology 14, 420–427. Samuel A. Cushman (2006) Effects of habitat loss and fragmentation on amphibians: A review and prospectus Biological Conservation 128; 231 –240 Donnelly, M. A., M. H. Chen, and G. C.Watkins. (2005) Sampling amphibians and reptiles in the Iwokrama Forest ecosystem. Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia 154:55–69. Toby A. Gardner*, Jos Barlow, Carlos A. Peres (2007a) Paradox, presumption and pitfalls in conservation biology: The importance of habitat change for amphibians and reptiles Biological Conservation 138; 166–179 T. A. Gardner, M.A.Ribeiro-Junior, J. Barlow, T. S. Avila-Pires, M.S. Hoogmeod and C. A. Peres (2007b) The Value of Primary, Secondary, and Plantation Forests for a Neotropical Herpetofauna Conservation Biology Vol 21, 3; 775–787 T. A. Gardner, J. Barlow, L. W. Parry, and C. A. Peres (2007c) Predicting the Uncertain Future of Tropical Forest Species in a Data Vacuum BIOTROPICA 39(1): 25–30 2007 Gibbons, J. W., Scott, D. E., Ryan, T. J., Buhlmann, K. A., Tuberville, T. D., Metts, B. S., Greene, J. L., Mills, T., Leiden, Y., Poppy, S. and C. T. Winne. 2000. The global decline of reptiles, deja-vu amphibians. Bioscience 50: 653–667.


S.V. Krishnamurthy (2003) Amphibian assemblages in undisturbed and disturbed areas of Kudremukh National Park, central Western Ghats, India Environmental Conservation 30 (3): 274–282 P. B. Pearman (1997) Correlates of Amphibian Diversity in an Altered Landscape of Amazonian Ecuador Conservation Biology, Volume 11, No. 5 Pages 1211–1225 R. Pardini, D. Faria, G. M. Accacio, R. R. Laps, E. Mariano-Neto, M. L.B. Paciencia, M. Dixo, Julio Baumgarten (2009) The challenge of maintaining Atlantic forest biodiversity: A multi-taxa conservation assessment of specialist and generalist species in an agro-forestry mosaic in southern Bahia Biological Conservation 142; 1170-1182 M. Rödel & R. Ernst (2004) MEASURING AND MONITORING AMPHIBIAN DIVERSITY IN TROPICAL FORESTS. I. AN EVALUATION OF METHODS WITH RECOMMENDATIONS FOR STANDARDIZATION Ecotropica 10: 1–14, Sala, O.E., Chapin, F.S.I., Armesto, J.J., Berlow, E., Bloomfield, J., Dirzo, R., Huber-Sanwald, E., Huenneke, L.F., Jackson, R.B., Kinzig, A., Leemans, R., Lodge, D.M., Mooney, H.A., Oesterheld, M., Poff, N.L., Sykes, M.T., Walker, B.H., Walker, M., Wall, D.H., (2000). Global biodiversity scenarios for the year 2100. Science 287, 1770–1774. Stuart, S.N., Chanson, J.S., Cox, N.A., Young, B.E., Rodrigues, A.S.L., Fischman, D.L. and Waller, R.W. (2004). Status and trends of amphibians declines and extinctions worldwide. Science 306: 1783-1786. J. N. Urbina-Cardona, M. Olivares-Pe´rez, V. H. Reynoso (2006) Herpetofauna diversity and microenvironment correlates across a pasture–edge–interior ecotone in tropical rainforest fragments in the Los Tuxtlas Biosphere Reserve of Veracruz, Mexico Biological Conservation 132; 61–75 J. N. Urbina-Cardona (2008) Conservation of Neotropical Herpetofauna: Research Trends and Challenges Tropical Conservation Science Vol.1(4):359-375 Wright SJ (2005) Tropical forests in a changing environment Trends Ecol Evol 20:553–560.


Whitfield SM, Pierce MSF (2005) Tree buttress microhabitat use by a neotropical leaf-litter herpetofauna. Journal of Herpetology 39:192-198. Whitfield SM, Bell KE, Philippi T, Sasa M, Bolanos F, Chaves G, Savage JM, DonnellyMA (2007) Amphibian and reptile declines over 35 years at La Selva, Costa Rica Proc Natl Acad Sci 104:8352–8356. Young, B.E., Stuart, S.N., Chanson, J.S., Cox, N.A., Boucher, T.M., 2004. Disappearing Jewels: The Status of New World Amphibians. Natureserve, Arlington, VA. 9.5 Butterfly References

Bennett, A. F., 1991. Roads, roadsides and wildlife conservation: A review. In: Saunders, D. A., Hobbs, R. J. (eds.). Nature Conservation 2: The role of corridors. Chipping Norton, NSW, Australia: Surrey Beatty pp. 99-118. Cottam, G., Curtis, J.T., 1956. The use of distance measures in phytosociological sampling. Ecology 37: 451-460. DeVries, P. J., Walla, T. R., 1999. Species diversity in spatial and temporal dimensions of fruitfeeding butterflies from two Ecuadorian rainforests. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 68: 333-353. Ehrlich, P. R., Raven, P. H., 1965. Butterflies and plants: A study in co-evolution. Evolution 18: 586-608. Ramos, A. F., 2000. Nymphalid butterfly communities in an Amazonian forest fragment. Journal of Research on the Lepidoptera 35:29-41. Sparrow, H. R., Sisk, T. D., Ehrlich, P. R., Murphy, D. D., 1994. Techniques and guidelines for monitoring neotropical butterflies. Conservation Biology. 8: 800-809.


10 Appendix A - GVI Species List
January 2010 ** New additions to the Yachana Species List in Phase 101

Falconidae Daptrius ater Falco rufigularis Ibycter americanus Herpetotheres cachinnans Micrastur gilvicollis Micrastur semitorquatus

Falcons and Caracaras Black Caracara Bat Falcon Red-throated Caracara Laughing Falcon Lined Forest-Falcon Collared Forest-Falcon Yellow-headed Caracara

10.1 Class Aves
Tinamiformes Tinamidae Crypturellus bartletti Crypturellus cinereus Crypturellus soui Crypturellus undulatus Crypturellus variegatus Tinamus major Tinamous Bartlett's Tinamou Cinereous Tinamou Little Tinamou Undulated Tinamou Variegated Tinamou Great Tinamou

Milvago chimachima

Galliformes Cracidae Nothocrax urumutum Ortalis guttata Penelope jacquacu Curassows, Guans, and Chachalacas Nocturnal Curassow Speckled Chachalaca Spix's Guan

Odontophoridae Odontophorus gujanensis

New World Quails Marbled Wood-Quail

Ciconiformes Ardeidae Ardea cocoi Bubulcus ibis Butorides striatus Egretta caerulea Egretta thula Tigrisoma lineatum Herons, Bitterns and Egrets Cocoi Heron Cattle Egret Striated Heron Little Blue Heron Snowy Egret Rufescent Tiger-Heron

Charadriiformes Scolopacidae Actitis macularia Tringa solitaria Sandpipers, Snipes and Phalaropes Spotted Sandpiper Solitary Sandpiper

Recurvirostridae Hoploxypterus cayanus

Plovers and Lapwings Pied Plover

Gruiformes Cathartidae Cathartes aura Cathartes melambrotus Coragyps atractus Sarcoramphus papa American Vultures Turkey Vulture Greater Yellow-headed Vulture Black Vulture King Vulture Columbiformes Columbidae Falconiformes Accipitridae **Spizaetus ornatus Buteo magnirostris Buteo polyosoma Elanoides forficatus Harpagus bidentatus Ictinia plumbea Leptodon cayanensis Leucopternis melanops Leucopternis albicollis Pandion haliaetus Kites, Eagles, Hawks etc **Ornate Hawk-eagle Roadside Hawk Variable Hawk Swallow-tailed Kite Double-toothed Kite Plumbeous Kite Gray-headed Kite Black-faced Hawk White Hawk Osprey Psittaciformes Psittacidae Amazona farinosa Amazona ochrocephala Ara severa Psittacidae Cont. Aratinga leucophthalmus Parrots and Macaws Mealy Amazon Yellow-crowned Amazon Chestnut-fronted Macaw Parrots and Macaws White-eyed Parakeet Claravis pretiosa Columba plumbea Geotrygon montana Leptotila rufaxilla Pigeons and Doves Blue Ground-Dove Plumbeous Pigeon Ruddy Quail-Dove Gray-fronted Dove Rallidae Anurolimnatus castaneiceps Aramides cajanea Rails, Gallinules, and Coots Chestnut-headed Crake Gray-necked Wood-Rail


Aratinga weddellii Pionites melanocephala Pionopsitta barrabandi Pionus menstruus Pionus chalcopterus Pyrrhura melanura

Dusky-headed Parakeet Black-headed Parrot Orange-cheeked Parrot Blue-headed Parrot Bronze-winged Parrot Maroon-tailed Parakeet

Chelidoptera tenebrosa Bucco macrodactylus Malacoptila fusca Monasa flavirostris Monasa morphoeus Monasa nigrifrons Notharchus macrorynchos

Swallow-winged Puffbird Chestnut-capped Puffbird White-chested Puffbird Yellow-billed Nunbird White-fronted Nunbird Black-fronted Nunbird White-necked Puffbird

Cuculiformes Cuculidae Crotophaga ani Crotophaga major Piaya cayana Piaya melanogaster Cuckoos and Anis Smooth-billed Ani Greater Ani Squirrel Cockoo Black-bellied Cuckoo Ramphastidae Opisthocomidae Opisthocomus hoazin Hoatzin Hoatzin Pteroglossus azara Pteroglossus castanotis Pteroglossus inscriptus Strigiformes Strigidae Glaucidium brasilianum Lophostrix cristata Otus choliba Otus watsonii Pulsatrix perspicillata Typical Owls Ferruginous Pygmy-Owl Crested owl Tropical Screech-Owl Tawny-bellied Screech-owl Spectacled owl Picidae Campephilus melanoleucos Campephilus rubricollis Caprimulgiformes Nyctibiidae Nyctibius aethereus Nyctibius grandis Nyctibius griseus Potoos Long-tailed Potoo Great Potoo Common Potoo Celeus elegans Celeus flavus Celeus grammicus Chrysoptilus punctigula Dryocopus lineatus Melanerpes cruentatus Caprimulgidae Nyctidromus albicollis Nyctiphrynus ocellatus Nightjars and Nighthawks Pauraque Ocellated Poorwill Picumnus lafresnayi Veniliornis fumigates Veniliornis passerines Woodpeckers and Piculets Crimson-crested Woodpecker Red-necked Woodpecker Chestnut Woodpecker Cream-coloured Woodpecker Scale-breasted Woodpecker Spot-breasted Woodpecker Lineated Woodpecker Yellow-tufted Woodpecker Lafresnaye's piculet Smoky-brown Woodpecker Little Woodpecker Pteroglossus pluricinctus Ramphastos vitellinus Ramphastos tucanus Selenidera reinwardtii Toucans Ivory-billed Aracari Chestnut-eared Aracari Lettered Aracari Many-banded Aracari Channel-billed Toucan White-throated Toucan Golden-collared Toucanet Capitonidae Capita aurovirens Capita auratus Eubucco bourcierii New World Barbets Scarlet-crowned Barbet Gilded Barbet Lemon-throated Barbet

Apodiformes Apodidae Chaetura cinereiventris Streptoprocne zonaris Swifts Grey-rumped Swift White-collared Swift

Trochilidae Amazilia franciae cyanocollis Amazilia fimbriata Anthracothorax nigricollis Campylopterus largipennis

Hummingbirds Andean Emerald Hummingbird Glittering-throated Emerald Black-throated Mango Gray-breasted Sabrewing Napo Sabrewing Glowing Puffleg Buff-tailed Sicklebill Rufous -breasted Hermit Black-eared Fairy Gould's Jewelfront

Piciformes Galibulidae Jacamerops aureus Galbula albirostris Jacamars Great Jacamar Yellow-billed Jacamar

Campylopterus villaviscensio Eriocnemis vestitus Eutoxeres condamini Glaucis hirsute Heliothryx aurita



Heliodoxa aurescens


Phaethornis bourcieri Phaethornis hispidus Phaethornis malaris Thalurania furcata

Straight-billed Hermit White-bearded Hermit Great-billed Hermit Fork-tailed Woodnymph

Cyanocorax violaceus

Violaceous Jay

Vireonidae Vireo olivaceus

Vireos Red-eyed Vireo

Trogoniformes Trogonidae Pharomachrus pavoninus Trogon melanurus Trogon viridis Trogon collaris Trogon rufus Trogon violaceus Trogon curucui Trogons and Quetzals Pavonine Quetzal Black-tailed Trogon Amazonian White-tailed Trogon Collared Trogon Black-throated Trogon Amazonian Violaceous Trogon Blue-crowned Trogon

Turdidae Catharus ustulatus Turdus albicollis Turdus lawrencii

Thrushes Swainson's Thrush White-necked Thrush Lawrence's Thrush

Hirundinidae Atticora fasciata Stelgidopteryx ruficollis Tachycineta albiventer

Swallows and Martins White-banded Swallow Southern rough-winged swallow White-winged Swallow

Coraciiformes Alcedinidae Chloroceryle amazona Chloroceryle americana Chloroceryle inda Megaceryle torquata Kingfishers Amazon Kingfisher Green Kingfisher Green and Rufous Kingfisher Ringed Kingfisher

Troglodytidae Campylorhynchus turdinus Donacobius atricapillus Henicorhina leucosticta Microcerculus marginatus Thryothorus coraya

Wrens Thrush-like Wren Black-capped Donacobius White-breasted Wood-wren Southern Nightingale-Wren Coraya Wren

Momotidae Baryphthengus martii Electron platyrhynchum Momotus momota

Motmots Rufous Motmot Broad-billed Motmot Blue-crowned Motmot

Polioptilidae Microbates cinereiventris

Gnatcatchers and Gnatwrens Tawny-faced Gnatwren

Parulidae Dendroica aestiva

New World Warblers Yellow Warbler Buff-rumped Warbler Blackburnian Warbler Blackpoll Warbler

Cotingidae Ampelioides tschudii Cotinga cayana Cotinga maynana Gynnoderus foetidus Iodopleura isabellae Querula purpurata

Cotinga Scaled Fruiteater Spangled Cotinga Plum-throated Cotinga Bare-necked Fruitcrow White-browed Purpletuft Purple throated Fruitcrow

Basileuterus fulvicauda Dendroica fusca Dendroica striata

Thraupidae Chlorophanes spiza Cissopis leveriana Creugops verticalis

Tanagers Green Honeycreeper Magpie Tanager Rufous-crested Tanager Purple Honeycreeper Yellow-bellied Dacnis Thick-billed Euphonia Rufous-bellied Euphonia Orange-bellied Euphonia White-lored Euphonia Red-crowned Ant-Tanager Yellow-backed Tanager Scarlet Tanager Summer Tanager Silver-beaked Tanager

Pipridae Chiroxiphia pareola Chloropipo holochlora Dixiphia pipra Lepidothrix coronata Machaeropterus regulus Manacus manacus Pipra erythrocephala Tyranneutes stolzmanni

Manakins Blue-backed Manakin Green Manakin White-crowned Manakin Blue-crowned Manakin Striped Manakin White-bearded Manakin Golden-headed Manakin Dwarf Tyrant Manakin

Cyanerpes caeruleus Dacnis flaviventer Euphonia laniirostris Euphonia rufiventris Euponia xanthogaster Euphonia chrysopasta Habia rubica Hemithraupis flavicollis Piranaga olivacea Piranaga rubra


Crows, Jays, and Magpies

Ramphocelus carbo


Ramphocelus nigrogularis Tachyphonus cristatus Tachyphonus surinamus Tangara callophrys Tangara chilensis Tangara mexicana Tangara schrankii Tangara xanthogastra Tersina viridis Thraupis episcopus Thraupis palmarum

Masked Crimson Tanager Flame-crested Tanager Fulvous-crested Tanager Opal-crowned Tanager Paradise Tanager Turquoise Tanager Green-and-gold Tanager Yellow-bellied Tanager Swallow Tanager Blue-gray Tanager Palm Tanager

Philander sp.

Four-eyed opossum

Xenarthra Megalonychidae Subfamily Choloepinae Choloepus diadactylus Two-toed sloths Southern two-toed sloth

Dasypodidae Cabassous unicinctus Dasypus novemcinctus

Armadillos Southern naked-tailed armadillo Nine-banded armadillo

Chiroptera Cardinalidae Cyanocompsa cyanoides Saltator grossus Saltator maximus Saltators, Grosbeaks etc Blue-black Grosbeak Slate-colored Grosbeak Buff-throated Saltator Carollinae Carollia brevicauda Carollia castanea Carollia perspicullatus Rhinophylla pumilio Emberizidae Ammodramus aurifrons Oryzoborus angloensis Emberizine Finches Yellow-browed Sparrow Lesser Seed-Finch Desmodontinae Desmodus rotundus Vampire bats Common vampire bat Short-tailed fruit bat Little fruit bat Short-tailed Fruit bats

Fringillidae Carduelis psaltria

Cardueline Finches Lesser Goldfinch

Emballonuridae Saccopteryx bilineata

Sac-winged/Sheath-tailed Bats White-lined bat

Icteridae Cacicus cela Cacicus solitarius Clypicterus oseryi Gymnomystax mexicanus Icterus croconotus Molothrus oryzivorous Psarocolius angustifrons Psarocolius decumanas Psarocolius viridis

American Orioles, and Blackbirds Yellow-rumped Cacique Solitary Cacique Casqued Oropendola Oriole Blackbird Orange-backed Troupial Giant Cowbird Russet-backed Oropendola Crested Oropendola Green Oropendola

Glossophaginae Glossophaga soricina Lonchophylla robusta

Long tongued bats Long tongued bat Spear-nosed long-tongued bat

Stenodermatidae Artibeus jamaicensis Artibeus lituratus Artibeus obscurus Artibeus planirostus Chiroderma villosum Sturrnia lilium

Neotropical Fruit bats Large fruit-eating bat Large fruit bat Large fruit bat Large fruit bat Big-eyed bat Hairy-legged bat Yellow shouldered fruit bat Tent-making bat Great Stripe-faced bat

10.2 Class Mammalia

Sturnria oporaphilum Uroderma pilobatum Vampyrodes caraccioli

Phyllostominae Didelphidae Caluromys lanatus Chironectes minimus Didelphis marsupialis Marmosa lepida Micoureus demerarae Opossums Macrophyllum macrophyllum Western woolly opposum Mimon crenulatum Water opossum Phyllostomus hastatus Common opossum Little rufous mouse opossum Vespertilionidae Long-furred woolly mouse opossum Myotis nigricans

Spear-nosed Bats Long-legged bat Hairy-nosed bat Spear-nosed bat

Vespertilionid Bats Little brown bat


Primates Callitrichidae Saguinus nigricollis


10.3 Class Sauropsida

Black-mantle tamarin Lizards Gekkonidae

Cebidae Gonatodes concinnatus Allouatta seniculus Aotus sp. Cebus albifrons Red howler monkey Gonatodes humeralis Night monkey Pseudogonatodes guianensis White-fronted capuchin Gymnophthalmidae Carnivora Procyonidae Nasua nasua Potos flavus Carnivores Alopoglossus striventris Raccoon Arthrosaura reticulata reticulata South american coati Cercosaurra argulus Kinkajou Cercosaura ocellata Leposoma parietale Mustelidae Eira Barbara Lontra longicaudis Weasel Neusticurus ecpleopus Tayra Neotropical otter Prionodactylus argulus Prionodactylus oshaughnessyi Common streamside lizard Elegant-eyed lizard White-striped eyed lizard Common forest lizard Reticulated creek lizard Black-bellied forest lizard Amazon pygmy gecko Bridled forest gecko Collared forest gecko

Felidae Herpailurus yaguarundi Leopardus pardalis Puma concolor

Cat Jaguarundi Ocelot Puma

Iguanas Hoplocercidae Enyalioides laticeps Amazon forest dragon

Polychrotidae Artidactyla Mazama Americana Tayassu tajacu Peccaries and Deer Red brocket deer Collared peccary Anolis fuscoauratus Anolis nitens scypheus Anolis ortonii Anolis punctata Rodentia Echimyidae Dactylomys dactylinus Nectomys squamipes Proechimys semispinosus Amazon bamboo rat Water rat Spiny rat Tropiduridae Sciuridae Sciurus sp. Sciurillus pusillus Squirrels Amazon red squirrel Neotropical pygmy squirrel Teiidae Large Cavylike Rodents Agouti paca Coendou bicolour Dasyprocta fuliginosa Hydrochaeirs hydrochaeirs Myoprocta pratti Paca Bi-color spined porcupine Black agouti Capybara Green acouchy Snakes Colubridae Atractus elaps Atractus major Earth snake sp3 Earth snake Kentropyx pelviceps Tupinambis teguixin Forest whiptail Golden tegu Tropidurus (Plica) plica Tropidurus (plica) ochrocollaris Collared tree runner umbra Olive tree runner Scincidae Mabuya nigropunctata Black-spotted skink Rodents Anolis trachyderma Slender anole Yellow-tongued forest anole Amazon bark anole Amazon green anole Common forest anole


Atractus occiptoalbus Chironius fuscus Chironius scurruls Clelia clelia clelia Dendriphidion dendrophis Dipsas catesbyi Dipsas indica Drepanoides anomalus Drymoluber dichrous Helicops angulatus Helicops leopardinus Imantodes cenchoa Imantodes lentiferus Leptodeira annulata annulata Leptophis cupreus Liophis miliaris chrysostomus Liophis reginae Oxyrhopus formosus Oxyrhopus melanogenys Oxyrhopus petola digitalus Pseustes poecilonotus polylepis Pseustes sulphureus Sphlophus compressus Spilotes pullatus Tantilla melanocephala melanocephala

Earth snake sp2 Olive whipsnake Rusty whipsnake Musarana Tawny forest racer Ornate snail-eating snake Big-headed snail-eating snake Amazon egg-eating snake Common glossy racer Banded south american water snake Spotted water snake

Micrurus spixii spixxi Micurus surinamensis surinamensis

Central amazon coral snake Aquatic coral snake

Crocodilians Alligatoridae Paleosuchus trigonatus Smooth-fronted caiman

10.4 Class Amphibia

Common blunt-headed tree snake Typhlonectidae Amazon blunt-headed tree snake Caecilia aff. tentaculata Common cat-eyed snake Brown parrot snake Plethodontidae White-lipped swamp snake Bolitoglossa peruviana Common swamp snake Yellow-headed calico snake Bufonidae Black-headed calico snake Rhinella marina Banded calico snake Rhinella complex margaritifer Common bird snake Rhinella dapsilis Giant bird snake Red-vine snake Dendrophryniscus Tiger rat snake Dendrophryniscus minutus Black-headed snake Common false viper Giant false viper Centrolene sp. undescribed Glass Frog Glass Frog Glass Frog Glass Frog Green-striped vine snake Cochranella anetarsia Cochranella midas Centrolenidae Glass Frogs Orange bellied leaf toad Leaf Toads Sharp-nosed Toad Crested Forest Toad Cane Toad Toads Dwarf climbing salamander Lungless Salamanders

Xenedon rabdocephalus Xenedon severos Xenoxybelis argenteus

Viperidae Cochranella resplendens Bothriopsis taeniata Bothriopsis bilineata bilineata Bothrops atrox **Bothrops hyoprora Lachesis muta muta Speckeled forest pit viper Western Striped Forest Pit Viper Fer-de-lance Ameerega bilinguis **Amazonian Hog-Nosed Viper Amazon Bushmaster Ameerega insperatus Ameerega parvulus Boidae Ameerega zaparo Boa constrictor constrictor Boa constrictor imperator Corallus enydris enydris Epicrates cenchria gaigei Red-tailed boa Colostethus bocagei Common boa constrictor Colostethus marchesianus Amazon tree boa Dendrobates duellmani Peruvian rainbow boa Hylidae Elapidae Cruziohyla craspedopus Micurus hemprichii ortonii Micrurus langsdorfii Micrurus lemniscatus Orange-ringed coral snake cf. Sphaenorhychus carneus Langsdorffs coral snake Eastern ribbon coral snake Dendropsophus bifurcus Pygmy hatchet-faced Tree Frog Upper Amazon Tree Frog Amazon Leaf Frog Tree Frogs Duellmans Poison Frog Ucayali Rocket Frog Sanguine Poison Frog Ameerega ingeri Ruby Poison Frog Dendrobatidae Poison Frogs


**Dendropsophus marmorata Dendropsophus rhodopeplus Dendropsophus triangulium Hemiphractus aff. scutatus Hyla lanciformis Hyla maomaratus Hylomantis buckleyi Hylomantis hulli Hypsiboas boans Hypsiboas calcarata Hypsiboas geographica Hypsiboas punctatus Hypsiboas geographica Hypsiboas punctatus Osteocephalus cabrerai complex Osteocephalus cf. deridens Osteocephalus leprieurii Osteocephalus planiceps Trachycephalus resinifictrix Phyllomedusa tarsius Phyllomedusa tomopterna Phyllomedusa vaillanti Scinax garbei Scinax rubra Trachycephalus venulosus

**Neotropical Marbled Tree Frog Red Striped Tree Frog Variable Clown Tree Frog Casque-headed Tree Frog Rocket Tree Frog

Leptodactylus knudseni Leptodactylus mystaceus Leptodactylus rhodomystax Leptodactylus wagneri Lithodytes lineatus Oreobates quixensis Vanzolinius discodactylus

Rose-sided Jungle Frog

Moustached Jungle Frog Wagneris Jungle Frog Painted Antnest Frog Common big headed Rain Frog Dark-blotched Whistling Frog

Gladiator Tree Frog Convict Tree Frog Map Tree Frog Common Polkadot Tree Frog Map Tree Frog Common Polkadot Tree Frog Forest bromeliad Tree Frog

Ranidae Rana palmipes

True Frogs Neotropical Green Frog

10.5 Class Arachnida
Araneae Nephila clavipes Golden Silk Spider Giant Fishing Spider

Common bromeliad Tree Frog Flat-headed bromeliad Tree Frog Amazonian Milk Tree Frog Warty Monkey Frog Barred Monkey Frog White-lined monkey Tree Frog Fringe lipped Tree Frog Two-striped Tree Frog Common milk Tree Frog

Ancylometes terrenus

10.6 Class Insecta
Coleoptera Euchroma gigantea Homoeotelus d'orbignyi Giant Ceiba Borer Pleasing Fungus Beetle

Microhylidae Chiasmocleis bassleri

Sheep Frogs Bassler's Sheep Frog

Scarabaeidae Canthon luteicollis Deltochilum howdeni

Leptodactylidae Edalorhina perezi Prystimantis acuminatus Prystimantis aff peruvianus Prystimantis altamazonicus Prystimantis conspicillatus Prystimantis lanthanites Prystimantis malkini Prystimantis martiae Prystimantis ockendeni complex Prystimantis sulcatus Prystimantis variabilis Hypnodactylus nigrovittatus Strabomantis sulcatus Engystomops petersi Leptodactylus andreae

Rain Frogs Eyelashed Forest Frog Green Rain Frog Peruvian Rain Frog Amazonian Rain Frog Chirping Robber Frog Striped-throated Rain Frog Malkini's Rain Frog

Dichotomius ohausi Dichotomius prietoi Eurysternus caribaeus Eurysternus confusus Eurysternus foedus Eurysternus inflexus Eurysternus plebejus

Grylloptera Marti's rainfrog Panacanthus cuspidatus Carabaya Rain Frog Hemiptera Broad-headed Rain Frog Dysodius lunatus Variable Rain Frog Black-banded Robber Frog Lepidoptera Broad-headed Rain Frog Painted Forest Toadlet Celmia celmus Cocha Chirping Frog Janthecla sista Lycaenidae Lunate Flatbug Spiny Devil Katydid


Thecla aetolius Thecla mavors Colobura annulata Colobura dirce

Charaxinae Agrias claudina Archaeoprepona amphimachus Archaeoprepona demophon Archaeoprepona demophon muson

Nymphalidae Apaturinae Doxocopa agathina Doxocopa griseldis Doxocopa laurentia Doxocopa linda

Archaeoprepona licomedes Consul fabius Hypna clytemnestra Memphis arachne Memphis oenomaus Memphis philomena Memphis offa

Biblidinae Biblis hyperia Callicore cynosure Catonephele acontius Catonephele esite Catonephele numilia Diaethria clymena Dynamine aerate Dynamine arthemisia Dynamine athemon Dynamine gisella Ectima thecla lerina Eunica alpais Eunica amelio Eunica clytia Eunica volumna Hamadryas albicornus Hamadryas arinome Hamadryas chloe Hamadryas feronia Hamadryas laodamia Nessaea batesii Nessaea hewitsoni Nica flavilla Panacea prola Panacea regina Paulogramma peristera Phrrhogyra amphiro Pyrrhogyra crameri Pyrrhogyra cuparina Pyrrhogyra cf nasica Pyrrhogyra otolais Temenis laothoe

Prepona eugenes Prepona dexamenus Prepona laertes Prepona pheridamas Zaretis isidora Zaretis itys

Cyrestinae Marpesia berania Marpesia crethon Marpesia petreus

Danainae Pieridae Appias drusilla Dismorphia pinthous Eurema cf xanthochlora Perrhybris lorena Phoebis rurina

Danainae Danaini Danaus plexippus Ithomiini Aeria eurimidea Ceratinia tutia Hypoleria sarepta Hyposcada anchiala Hyposcada illinissa Hypothyris anastasia Hypothyris fluonia Ithomia amarilla Ithomia salapia Mechanitis lysimnia


Mechanitis mazaeus Mechanitis messenoides Methona confusa psamathe Methone Cecilia Oleria Gunilla Oleria ilerdina Oleria tigilla Tithorea harmonia

Anartia jatrophae Baeotus deucalion Eresia eunice Eresia pelonia Historis odius Historis acheronta Metamorpha elisa Metamorpha sulpitia Phyciodes plagiata

Heliconinae Acraeini Actinote sp. Heliconiini Dryas iulia Eueides Eunice Eueides Isabella Eueides lampeto Eueides lybia Heliconius erato Heliconius hecale Heliconius melponmene Heliconius numata Heliconius sara Heliconius xanthocles Heliconius doris Philaethria dido

Siproeta stelenes Smyrna blomfildia Tigridia acesta

Satyrinae Brassolini Bia actorion Caligo eurilochus Caligo idomeneus idomeneides Caligo illioneus Caligo teucer Catoblepia cassiope Caligo placidiamus Catoblepia berecynthia Catoblepia cassiope Catoblepia generosa Catoblepia sorannus Catoblepia xanthus

Limenitidinae Adelpha amazona Adelpha cocala Adelpha cytherea Adelpha erotia Adelpha iphicleola Adelpha iphiclus Adelpha lerna Adelpha melona Adelpha mesentina Adelpha naxia Adelpha panaema Adelpha phrolseola Adelpha thoasa Adelpha viola Adelpha ximena

Opsiphanes invirae

Haeterini Cithaerias aurora Cithaerias menander Cithaerias pireta Haetera macleannania Haetera piera Pierella astyoche Pierella hortona Pierella lamia Pierella lena Pierella lucia

Morphini Antirrhea hela Antirrhea philoctetes avernus Common Brown Morpho

Nymphalinae Anartia amathae

Morpho Achilles Morpho deidamia


Morpho helenor Morpho Menelaus Morpho peleides Morpho polycarmes

Ancyluris etias Anteros renaldus Calospila cilissa Calospila partholon Calospila emylius

Satyrini Caeruleuptychia scopulata Chloreuptychia agatha Chloreuptychia herseis Euptychia binoculata Euptychia labe Euptychia myncea Euptychia renata Hermeuptychia hermes Sarota chrysus Sarota spicata Setabis gelasine Stalachtis calliope Stalachtis phaedusa Synargis orestessa Magneuptychia analis Magneuptychia libye Magneuptychia ocnus Magneuptychia ocypete Magneuptychia tiessa Pareuptychia hesionides Pareuptychia ocirrhoe Taygetis Cleopatra Taygetis echo Taygetis mermeria Taygetis sosis Sosis Satyr Cleopatra Satyr Echo Satyr Pareuptychia hesionides

Calydna venusta Cartea vitula Emesis fatinella Emesis Lucinda Emesis mandana Emesis ocypore Eurybia dardus Eurybia elvina Eurybia franciscana Eurybia halimede Eurybia unxia Hyphilaria parthenis Isapis agyrtus Ithomiola floralis Lasaia agesilaus narses Lasaia pseudomeris Leucochimona vestalis Livendula amaris Livendula violacea Lyropteryx appolonia Mesophthalma idotea Mesosemia loruhama Mesosemia latizonata Napaea heteroea Nymphidium mantus Nyphidium nr minuta Nymphidium lysimon

Papilionidae Battus belus varus Battus polydamas Papilio androgeus Papilio thoas cyniras Parides aeneas bolivar Parides Lysander Parides pizarro Parides sesostris

Nymphidium balbinus Nymphidium caricae Nymphidium chione Pandemos pasiphae Perophtalma lasus Pirascca tyriotes Rhetus arcius Rhetus periander

Riodinidae Amarynthis meneria Ancyluris endaemon Ancyluris aulestes


11 Appendix B – GVI Yachana Reserve Map


Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful