You are on page 1of 53

Global Vision International

2010 Report Series No. 001

GVI Ecuador

Rainforest Conservation and Community


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


Craig Herbert Scholar Katherine Parker Volunteer

Jill Robinson Scholar Skylar Senti Volunteer
Jasmine Rowe Scholar Rachel Smith Volunteer
Laura Jones Intern Hugo Sykes Volunteer
Thomas Smith Intern Amelia Wheeler Volunteer
Rachel Adler Volunteer Roberth Alvarado High school student
Bianca Amato Volunteer Christian Andi High school student
Stef DuFresne Volunteer Javier Andy High school student
Anna Flanagan Volunteer Marianna Conforme High school student
Alistair Gorden Volunteer Richard Dahua High school student
James Mallard Volunteer Abel Kunchicuy High school student
Benny Mansfield Volunteer Christian Vega High school student
Robert McCann Volunteer Mauricio Andi High school graduate
Valerie Mills Volunteer
Prashant Mistry Volunteer

Edited by
Karina Berg – Country Director

GVI Ecuador/Rainforest Conservation and Community Development

Address: Casilla Postal 17-07-8832
Quito, Ecuador
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
• 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
• 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 Map showing the location of each mistnetting site

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


Fig. 2.1.3 Summary Mist-netting Information for Phase 101

Fig. 2.1.4 Summary Mist-netting Information for Phase 094

Figure 4.1.1 Number of individuals found in pitfalls in 101

Figure 4.1.2 Number of individuals found on visual encounter surveys in 101

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

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

Figure 5.1.1 New standardised dot codes introduced in week 6 of Phase 101

Figure 5.1.2 Number of species and individuals trapped at each trap site
Figure 5.1.3 Average number of species and individuals encountered at each site

Figure 5.1.4 Number of species recorded at each trap in the forest and trail areas

Figure 6.1.1 Habitat type of each dung beetle sampling site

Figure 6.1.2 Trap layouts at each site

Figure 6.1.3 Habitat compared to individuals captured

Figure 6.1.4 Individuals identified to species

Figure 6.1.5 Comparison of habitat to species richness

1 Introduction

The Rainforest Conservation and Community Development Expedition operated by

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

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.

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

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

In order to achieve the key goals, volunteers participate in five or ten weeks of each
phase and are trained by GVI personnel to conduct research on behalf of the local
partners in support of their ongoing work. This report summarises the scientific
research and community-based programmes conducted during the ten-week
expedition from Friday 8th January to Friday 19th March 2010, at the Yachana

2 Avian Research

2.1 Avian Mistnetting

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

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

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

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.

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.


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
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

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

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.

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
Location Number of Plants Canopy Class (%) (%) Five largest trees DBH Notes

Melo Heli. Coffee High Mid Low Gap 1 2 3 4 5

Cascada 156 124 924 63.3 26.7 3.3 6.7 42 143 92 82 80 79
Ficus 1393 15 3230 23.3 56.6 13.3 6.7 51 96 90 90 86 76 Stumps
Laguna 664 20 2 90 10 0 0 53 105 96 81 79 76
Frontier 812 30 6 40 53.3 6.7 0 50 128 111 106 99 89
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

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
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 Total
Net Hours 67.28 66.28 68.30 67.10 269
Number of Individuals 12 11 22 35 80
Individuals per net hour 0.18 0.17 0.32 0.52 0.30
Total Num. of species 8 7 15 20 30
Species per net hour 0.12 0.11 0.22 0.30 0.11
Total Num. of famillies 6 4 10 11 16

Fig. 2.1.4 Summary mist-nettingiInformation for Phase 094

More disturbed Less Disturbed
Cascada Ficus Laguna Frontier Total
Net Hours 69.16 68.88 69.20 64.00 271
Number of Individuals 27 13 39 48 127
Individuals per net
hour 0.39 0.19 0.56 0.75 0.47
Total Num. of species 14 8 17 20 33
Species per net hour 0.20 0.12 0.25 0.31 0.12
Total Num. of famillies 5 5 11 9 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.

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.

3 Mammal Incidentals
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.

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.

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

4 Herpetological Research

4.1 The Effect of Structural Habitat Change on Herpetofaunal Communities

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
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
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.


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
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.

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 Amphibians Reptiles
Total 163 132 31
Visual Encounter Surveys in Phase 101
Figure 4.1.2 Number of individuals found on visual encounter surveys in Phase 101
Amphibians and Amphibians Reptiles
Total 121 109 12
(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.


Figure 4.1.3 Number of individuals found in pitfall traps in total in the project so far
Amphibians and Amphibians Reptiles
Total 701 589 122

Visual Encounter Surveys

Figure 4.1.4: Number of individuals found in total for visual encounter surveys in the
project so far
Amphibians and Amphibians Reptiles
Total 778 719 59
(approx 5760 mins survey
time with 5/6 searchers)

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.

5 Butterfly Research

5.1 Assessment of Antropogenic Disturbance on Butterfly Communities

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

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

The Yachana Reserve comprises approximately 1000 hectares of predominantly

primary lowland rainforest in addition to a matrix of abandoned plantations, grassland,

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

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

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

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

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.

Overall 187 individuals of at least 36 different species were captured over the two 14-
day periods with an additional twelve species still awaiting identification confirmation.
Only one new species was confirmed for the Yachana Reserve species list – Caligo

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 Trap Total Number of Total Number of Individuals

Number Species Trapped Trapped
Trail 3 13 18
Trail 5 16 31
Trail 7 13 31
Trail 9 15 39
Trail 11 17 38
Trail 13 9 17
Trail 15 13 28
Trail 17 19 38
Trail 19 9 22
Forest 4 10 18
Forest 6 21 41
Forest 8 19 28
Forest 10 17 35
Forest 12 19 35
Forest 14 15 27
Forest 16 16 23
Forest 18 14 23
Forest 20 12 20

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

Locations Number of Number of Individuals

Forest Average 15.8 27.7
Forest Standard 3.5 7.7
Trail Average 13.7 29.1
Trail Standard 3.3 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













































Figure 5.1.4 Number of species recorded at each trap in the forest and trail areas.

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

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.

6 Dung Beetle Research

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

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
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?

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.

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

Site Habitat Type

DB1 Primary rainforest/Less disturbed
DB2 Primary rainforest/Less disturbed
DB3 Primary rainforest/Less disturbed
DB4 Primary rainforest/Less disturbed
DB5 Primary rainforest/Less disturbed
DB6 Secondary rainforest
DB7 Grassland with intermittent trees, bordered by secondary forest
DB8 Grassland with intermittent trees, bordered by secondary forest
DB9 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
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

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

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).

Primary Undisturbed Individuals Disturbed Individuals
DB1- Ficus 18 DB6- Ridge 179
DB2- Upper B-loop 363 DB7- Buena Vista 234
DB3- Inca 4 DB8 -Buena Vista 124
DB4- Upper Frontier 706 DB9 -Cacao Grove 349 (534)*
DB5- Ficus (road) 144 (167*)
Total 1235 Total 886
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

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

Habitat Primary – Undisturbed Secondary - Disturbed Totals

Trap Number DB1 DB2 DB3 DB4 DB5 DB6 DB7 DB8 DB9 Primary Secondary
Canthidium sp. Aff. Histrio 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0
Canthon luteicollis 2 8 0 14 1 3 3 0 2 28 8
Deltochilum granulatum 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 8 0
Dichotomius ahaus 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1
Dichotomius concicollis 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0
Dichotomius preitoi 1 3 0 5 2 1 0 0 0 12 1
Eurysternus caribaeus 4 28 0 115 76 37 3 1 44 260 85
Eurysternus confusus 0 15 0 1 33 0 4 2 7 49 13
Eurysternus foedus 0 6 0 7 2 4 3 2 1 19 10
Eurysternus hypocrita 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0
Eurysternus inflexus 1 26 1 53 9 11 3 6 5 101 25
Eurysternus plebejus 1 1 1 0 0 1 22 12 0 4 35

Identified to Species
Onthophagus acuminates 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1
Onthophagus haematopus 0 11 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 18 7
Onthophagus nyctopus 1 31 0 0 5 21 0 0 54 58 75
Onthophagus oere 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 6 0
Onthophagus onareo 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0
Onthophagus pubresas 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0

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

Habitat Specificity and Assemblage Similarity

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

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.

7 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
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.

8 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).

 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 References

9.1 General References

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

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

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

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

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

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,


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.
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:

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. Lo-
Man-Hung, J. R. Malcolm, M. B. Martins, L. A. M. Mestre, R. Miranda-Santos, A. L. Nunes-
Gutjahr, W. L. Overal, L. Parry, S. L. Peters, M. A. Ribeiro-Junior, M. N. F. da Silva, C. da Silva
Motta, and C. A. Peres (2007) Quantifying the biodiversity value of tropical primary, secondary,
and plantation forests PNAS vol. 104 no. 47 18555–18560

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

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

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

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,

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

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):

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


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

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 fruit-
feeding butterflies from two Ecuadorian rainforests. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 68:

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

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 Falconidae Falcons and Caracaras
January 2010 Daptrius ater Black Caracara

** New additions to the Yachana Falco rufigularis Bat Falcon

Ibycter americanus Red-throated Caracara

Species List in Phase 101
Herpetotheres cachinnans Laughing Falcon

Micrastur gilvicollis Lined Forest-Falcon

Micrastur semitorquatus Collared Forest-Falcon

10.1 Class Aves Milvago chimachima Yellow-headed Caracara

Tinamidae Tinamous
Cracidae Curassows, Guans, and Chachalacas
Crypturellus bartletti Bartlett's Tinamou
Nothocrax urumutum Nocturnal Curassow
Crypturellus cinereus Cinereous Tinamou
Ortalis guttata Speckled Chachalaca
Crypturellus soui Little Tinamou
Penelope jacquacu Spix's Guan
Crypturellus undulatus Undulated Tinamou

Crypturellus variegatus Variegated Tinamou

Odontophoridae New World Quails
Tinamus major Great Tinamou
Odontophorus gujanensis Marbled Wood-Quail

Ardeidae Herons, Bitterns and Egrets
Scolopacidae Sandpipers, Snipes and Phalaropes
Ardea cocoi Cocoi Heron
Actitis macularia Spotted Sandpiper
Bubulcus ibis Cattle Egret
Tringa solitaria Solitary Sandpiper
Butorides striatus Striated Heron

Egretta caerulea Little Blue Heron

Recurvirostridae Plovers and Lapwings
Egretta thula Snowy Egret
Hoploxypterus cayanus Pied Plover
Tigrisoma lineatum Rufescent Tiger-Heron

Cathartidae American Vultures
Rallidae Rails, Gallinules, and Coots
Cathartes aura Turkey Vulture
Anurolimnatus castaneiceps Chestnut-headed Crake
Cathartes melambrotus Greater Yellow-headed Vulture
Aramides cajanea Gray-necked Wood-Rail
Coragyps atractus Black Vulture

Sarcoramphus papa King Vulture


Columbidae Pigeons and Doves

Claravis pretiosa Blue Ground-Dove
Accipitridae Kites, Eagles, Hawks etc
Columba plumbea Plumbeous Pigeon
**Spizaetus ornatus **Ornate Hawk-eagle
Geotrygon montana Ruddy Quail-Dove
Buteo magnirostris Roadside Hawk
Leptotila rufaxilla Gray-fronted Dove
Buteo polyosoma Variable Hawk

Elanoides forficatus Swallow-tailed Kite

Harpagus bidentatus Double-toothed Kite
Psittacidae Parrots and Macaws
Ictinia plumbea Plumbeous Kite
Amazona farinosa Mealy Amazon
Leptodon cayanensis Gray-headed Kite
Amazona ochrocephala Yellow-crowned Amazon
Leucopternis melanops Black-faced Hawk
Ara severa Chestnut-fronted Macaw
Leucopternis albicollis White Hawk
Psittacidae Cont. Parrots and Macaws
Pandion haliaetus Osprey
Aratinga leucophthalmus White-eyed Parakeet

Aratinga weddellii Dusky-headed Parakeet Chelidoptera tenebrosa Swallow-winged Puffbird

Pionites melanocephala Black-headed Parrot Bucco macrodactylus Chestnut-capped Puffbird

Pionopsitta barrabandi Orange-cheeked Parrot Malacoptila fusca White-chested Puffbird

Pionus menstruus Blue-headed Parrot Monasa flavirostris Yellow-billed Nunbird

Pionus chalcopterus Bronze-winged Parrot Monasa morphoeus White-fronted Nunbird

Pyrrhura melanura Maroon-tailed Parakeet Monasa nigrifrons Black-fronted Nunbird

Notharchus macrorynchos White-necked Puffbird


Cuculidae Cuckoos and Anis Capitonidae New World Barbets

Crotophaga ani Smooth-billed Ani Capita aurovirens Scarlet-crowned Barbet

Crotophaga major Greater Ani Capita auratus Gilded Barbet

Piaya cayana Squirrel Cockoo Eubucco bourcierii Lemon-throated Barbet

Piaya melanogaster Black-bellied Cuckoo

Ramphastidae Toucans

Opisthocomidae Hoatzin Pteroglossus azara Ivory-billed Aracari

Opisthocomus hoazin Hoatzin Pteroglossus castanotis Chestnut-eared Aracari

Pteroglossus inscriptus Lettered Aracari

Strigiformes Pteroglossus pluricinctus Many-banded Aracari

Strigidae Typical Owls Ramphastos vitellinus Channel-billed Toucan

Glaucidium brasilianum Ferruginous Pygmy-Owl Ramphastos tucanus White-throated Toucan

Lophostrix cristata Crested owl Selenidera reinwardtii Golden-collared Toucanet

Otus choliba Tropical Screech-Owl

Otus watsonii Tawny-bellied Screech-owl Picidae Woodpeckers and Piculets

Pulsatrix perspicillata Spectacled owl Campephilus melanoleucos Crimson-crested Woodpecker

Campephilus rubricollis Red-necked Woodpecker

Caprimulgiformes Celeus elegans Chestnut Woodpecker

Nyctibiidae Potoos Celeus flavus Cream-coloured Woodpecker

Nyctibius aethereus Long-tailed Potoo Celeus grammicus Scale-breasted Woodpecker

Nyctibius grandis Great Potoo Chrysoptilus punctigula Spot-breasted Woodpecker

Nyctibius griseus Common Potoo Dryocopus lineatus Lineated Woodpecker

Melanerpes cruentatus Yellow-tufted Woodpecker

Caprimulgidae Nightjars and Nighthawks Picumnus lafresnayi Lafresnaye's piculet

Nyctidromus albicollis Pauraque Veniliornis fumigates Smoky-brown Woodpecker

Nyctiphrynus ocellatus Ocellated Poorwill Veniliornis passerines Little Woodpecker

Apodiformes Trochilidae Hummingbirds

Apodidae Swifts Amazilia franciae cyanocollis Andean Emerald Hummingbird
Chaetura cinereiventris Grey-rumped Swift Amazilia fimbriata Glittering-throated Emerald
Streptoprocne zonaris White-collared Swift Anthracothorax nigricollis Black-throated Mango

Campylopterus largipennis Gray-breasted Sabrewing

Piciformes Campylopterus villaviscensio Napo Sabrewing
Galibulidae Jacamars Eriocnemis vestitus Glowing Puffleg
Jacamerops aureus Great Jacamar Eutoxeres condamini Buff-tailed Sicklebill
Galbula albirostris Yellow-billed Jacamar Glaucis hirsute Rufous -breasted Hermit

Heliothryx aurita Black-eared Fairy

Bucconidae Puffbirds Heliodoxa aurescens Gould's Jewelfront

Phaethornis bourcieri Straight-billed Hermit Cyanocorax violaceus Violaceous Jay

Phaethornis hispidus White-bearded Hermit

Phaethornis malaris Great-billed Hermit Vireonidae Vireos

Thalurania furcata Fork-tailed Woodnymph Vireo olivaceus Red-eyed Vireo

Trogoniformes Turdidae Thrushes

Trogonidae Trogons and Quetzals Catharus ustulatus Swainson's Thrush

Pharomachrus pavoninus Pavonine Quetzal Turdus albicollis White-necked Thrush

Trogon melanurus Black-tailed Trogon Turdus lawrencii Lawrence's Thrush

Trogon viridis Amazonian White-tailed Trogon

Trogon collaris Collared Trogon Hirundinidae Swallows and Martins

Trogon rufus Black-throated Trogon Atticora fasciata White-banded Swallow

Trogon violaceus Amazonian Violaceous Trogon Stelgidopteryx ruficollis Southern rough-winged swallow

Trogon curucui Blue-crowned Trogon Tachycineta albiventer White-winged Swallow

Coraciiformes Troglodytidae Wrens

Alcedinidae Kingfishers Campylorhynchus turdinus Thrush-like Wren

Chloroceryle amazona Amazon Kingfisher Donacobius atricapillus Black-capped Donacobius

Chloroceryle americana Green Kingfisher Henicorhina leucosticta White-breasted Wood-wren

Chloroceryle inda Green and Rufous Kingfisher Microcerculus marginatus Southern Nightingale-Wren

Megaceryle torquata Ringed Kingfisher Thryothorus coraya Coraya Wren

Momotidae Motmots Polioptilidae Gnatcatchers and Gnatwrens

Baryphthengus martii Rufous Motmot Microbates cinereiventris Tawny-faced Gnatwren

Electron platyrhynchum Broad-billed Motmot

Momotus momota Blue-crowned Motmot Parulidae New World Warblers

Dendroica aestiva Yellow Warbler

Cotingidae Cotinga Basileuterus fulvicauda Buff-rumped Warbler

Ampelioides tschudii Scaled Fruiteater Dendroica fusca Blackburnian Warbler

Cotinga cayana Spangled Cotinga Dendroica striata Blackpoll Warbler

Cotinga maynana Plum-throated Cotinga

Gynnoderus foetidus Bare-necked Fruitcrow Thraupidae Tanagers

Iodopleura isabellae White-browed Purpletuft Chlorophanes spiza Green Honeycreeper
Querula purpurata Purple throated Fruitcrow Cissopis leveriana Magpie Tanager

Creugops verticalis Rufous-crested Tanager

Pipridae Manakins Cyanerpes caeruleus Purple Honeycreeper
Chiroxiphia pareola Blue-backed Manakin Dacnis flaviventer Yellow-bellied Dacnis
Chloropipo holochlora Green Manakin Euphonia laniirostris Thick-billed Euphonia
Dixiphia pipra White-crowned Manakin Euphonia rufiventris Rufous-bellied Euphonia
Lepidothrix coronata Blue-crowned Manakin Euponia xanthogaster Orange-bellied Euphonia
Machaeropterus regulus Striped Manakin Euphonia chrysopasta White-lored Euphonia
Manacus manacus White-bearded Manakin Habia rubica Red-crowned Ant-Tanager
Pipra erythrocephala Golden-headed Manakin Hemithraupis flavicollis Yellow-backed Tanager
Tyranneutes stolzmanni Dwarf Tyrant Manakin Piranaga olivacea Scarlet Tanager

Piranaga rubra Summer Tanager

Corvidae Crows, Jays, and Magpies Ramphocelus carbo Silver-beaked Tanager

Ramphocelus nigrogularis Masked Crimson Tanager Philander sp. Four-eyed opossum

Tachyphonus cristatus Flame-crested Tanager

Tachyphonus surinamus Fulvous-crested Tanager Xenarthra

Tangara callophrys Opal-crowned Tanager Megalonychidae

Tangara chilensis Paradise Tanager Subfamily Choloepinae Two-toed sloths

Tangara mexicana Turquoise Tanager Choloepus diadactylus Southern two-toed sloth

Tangara schrankii Green-and-gold Tanager

Tangara xanthogastra Yellow-bellied Tanager Dasypodidae Armadillos

Tersina viridis Swallow Tanager Cabassous unicinctus Southern naked-tailed armadillo

Thraupis episcopus Blue-gray Tanager Dasypus novemcinctus Nine-banded armadillo

Thraupis palmarum Palm Tanager


Cardinalidae Saltators, Grosbeaks etc Carollinae Short-tailed Fruit bats

Cyanocompsa cyanoides Blue-black Grosbeak Carollia brevicauda

Saltator grossus Slate-colored Grosbeak Carollia castanea

Saltator maximus Buff-throated Saltator Carollia perspicullatus Short-tailed fruit bat

Rhinophylla pumilio Little fruit bat

Emberizidae Emberizine Finches

Ammodramus aurifrons Yellow-browed Sparrow Desmodontinae Vampire bats

Oryzoborus angloensis Lesser Seed-Finch Desmodus rotundus Common vampire bat

Fringillidae Cardueline Finches Emballonuridae Sac-winged/Sheath-tailed Bats

Carduelis psaltria Lesser Goldfinch Saccopteryx bilineata White-lined bat

Icteridae American Orioles, and Blackbirds Glossophaginae Long tongued bats

Cacicus cela Yellow-rumped Cacique Glossophaga soricina Long tongued bat

Cacicus solitarius Solitary Cacique Lonchophylla robusta Spear-nosed long-tongued bat

Clypicterus oseryi Casqued Oropendola

Gymnomystax mexicanus Oriole Blackbird Stenodermatidae Neotropical Fruit bats

Icterus croconotus Orange-backed Troupial Artibeus jamaicensis Large fruit-eating bat

Molothrus oryzivorous Giant Cowbird Artibeus lituratus Large fruit bat

Psarocolius angustifrons Russet-backed Oropendola Artibeus obscurus Large fruit bat

Psarocolius decumanas Crested Oropendola Artibeus planirostus Large fruit bat

Psarocolius viridis Green Oropendola Chiroderma villosum Big-eyed bat

Sturrnia lilium Hairy-legged bat

Sturnria oporaphilum Yellow shouldered fruit bat

10.2 Class
Uroderma pilobatum Tent-making bat
Mammalia Vampyrodes caraccioli Great Stripe-faced bat

Phyllostominae Spear-nosed Bats
Didelphidae Opossums
Macrophyllum macrophyllum Long-legged bat
Caluromys lanatus Western woolly opposum
Mimon crenulatum Hairy-nosed bat
Chironectes minimus Water opossum
Phyllostomus hastatus Spear-nosed bat
Didelphis marsupialis Common opossum

Marmosa lepida Little rufous mouse opossum

Vespertilionidae Vespertilionid Bats
Micoureus demerarae Long-furred woolly mouse opossum
Myotis nigricans Little brown bat

10.3 Class
Primates Monkeys

Callitrichidae Sauropsida
Saguinus nigricollis Black-mantle tamarin

Gonatodes concinnatus Collared forest gecko
Allouatta seniculus Red howler monkey
Gonatodes humeralis Bridled forest gecko
Aotus sp. Night monkey
Pseudogonatodes guianensis Amazon pygmy gecko
Cebus albifrons White-fronted capuchin

Carnivora Carnivores
Alopoglossus striventris Black-bellied forest lizard
Procyonidae Raccoon
Arthrosaura reticulata reticulata Reticulated creek lizard
Nasua nasua South american coati
Cercosaurra argulus
Potos flavus Kinkajou
Cercosaura ocellata

Leposoma parietale Common forest lizard

Mustelidae Weasel
Neusticurus ecpleopus Common streamside lizard
Eira Barbara Tayra Prionodactylus argulus Elegant-eyed lizard
Lontra longicaudis Neotropical otter Prionodactylus oshaughnessyi White-striped eyed lizard

Felidae Cat Iguanas

Herpailurus yaguarundi Jaguarundi Hoplocercidae
Leopardus pardalis Ocelot Enyalioides laticeps Amazon forest dragon
Puma concolor Puma

Artidactyla Peccaries and Deer Anolis fuscoauratus Slender anole
Mazama Americana Red brocket deer Anolis nitens scypheus Yellow-tongued forest anole
Tayassu tajacu Collared peccary Anolis ortonii Amazon bark anole

Anolis punctata Amazon green anole

Rodentia Rodents Anolis trachyderma Common forest anole


Dactylomys dactylinus Amazon bamboo rat Scincidae

Nectomys squamipes Water rat Mabuya nigropunctata Black-spotted skink

Proechimys semispinosus Spiny rat


Sciuridae Squirrels Tropidurus (Plica) plica Collared tree runner

Tropidurus (plica) umbra
Sciurus sp. Amazon red squirrel ochrocollaris Olive tree runner

Sciurillus pusillus Neotropical pygmy squirrel


Large Cavylike Rodents Kentropyx pelviceps Forest whiptail

Agouti paca Paca Tupinambis teguixin Golden tegu

Coendou bicolour Bi-color spined porcupine

Dasyprocta fuliginosa Black agouti Snakes

Hydrochaeirs hydrochaeirs Capybara Colubridae

Myoprocta pratti Green acouchy Atractus elaps Earth snake sp3

Atractus major Earth snake

Atractus occiptoalbus Earth snake sp2 Micrurus spixii spixxi Central amazon coral snake

Chironius fuscus Olive whipsnake Micurus surinamensis surinamensis Aquatic coral snake

Chironius scurruls Rusty whipsnake

Clelia clelia clelia Musarana Crocodilians

Dendriphidion dendrophis Tawny forest racer Alligatoridae

Dipsas catesbyi Ornate snail-eating snake Paleosuchus trigonatus Smooth-fronted caiman

Dipsas indica Big-headed snail-eating snake

Drepanoides anomalus Amazon egg-eating snake

10.4 Class
Drymoluber dichrous Common glossy racer

Helicops angulatus Banded south american water snake Amphibia

Helicops leopardinus Spotted water snake
Imantodes cenchoa Common blunt-headed tree snake
Imantodes lentiferus Amazon blunt-headed tree snake
Caecilia aff. tentaculata
Leptodeira annulata annulata Common cat-eyed snake

Leptophis cupreus Brown parrot snake

Plethodontidae Lungless Salamanders
Liophis miliaris chrysostomus White-lipped swamp snake
Bolitoglossa peruviana Dwarf climbing salamander
Liophis reginae Common swamp snake

Oxyrhopus formosus Yellow-headed calico snake

Bufonidae Toads
Oxyrhopus melanogenys Black-headed calico snake
Rhinella marina Cane Toad
Oxyrhopus petola digitalus Banded calico snake
Rhinella complex margaritifer Crested Forest Toad
Pseustes poecilonotus polylepis Common bird snake
Rhinella dapsilis Sharp-nosed Toad
Pseustes sulphureus Giant bird snake

Sphlophus compressus Red-vine snake

Dendrophryniscus Leaf Toads
Spilotes pullatus Tiger rat snake
Tantilla melanocephala Dendrophryniscus minutus Orange bellied leaf toad
melanocephala Black-headed snake

Xenedon rabdocephalus Common false viper

Centrolenidae Glass Frogs
Xenedon severos Giant false viper
Centrolene sp. undescribed Glass Frog
Xenoxybelis argenteus Green-striped vine snake
Cochranella anetarsia Glass Frog

Cochranella midas Glass Frog

Cochranella resplendens Glass Frog
Bothriopsis taeniata Speckeled forest pit viper

Bothriopsis bilineata bilineata Western Striped Forest Pit Viper

Dendrobatidae Poison Frogs
Bothrops atrox Fer-de-lance
Ameerega bilinguis
**Bothrops hyoprora **Amazonian Hog-Nosed Viper
Ameerega ingeri Ruby Poison Frog
Lachesis muta muta Amazon Bushmaster
Ameerega insperatus

Ameerega parvulus
Ameerega zaparo Sanguine Poison Frog
Boa constrictor constrictor Red-tailed boa
Colostethus bocagei
Boa constrictor imperator Common boa constrictor
Colostethus marchesianus Ucayali Rocket Frog
Corallus enydris enydris Amazon tree boa
Dendrobates duellmani Duellmans Poison Frog
Epicrates cenchria gaigei Peruvian rainbow boa

Hylidae Tree Frogs

Cruziohyla craspedopus Amazon Leaf Frog
Micurus hemprichii ortonii Orange-ringed coral snake
cf. Sphaenorhychus carneus Pygmy hatchet-faced Tree Frog
Micrurus langsdorfii Langsdorffs coral snake
Dendropsophus bifurcus Upper Amazon Tree Frog
Micrurus lemniscatus Eastern ribbon coral snake

**Dendropsophus marmorata **Neotropical Marbled Tree Frog Leptodactylus knudseni Rose-sided Jungle Frog

Dendropsophus rhodopeplus Red Striped Tree Frog Leptodactylus mystaceus

Dendropsophus triangulium Variable Clown Tree Frog Leptodactylus rhodomystax Moustached Jungle Frog

Hemiphractus aff. scutatus Casque-headed Tree Frog Leptodactylus wagneri Wagneris Jungle Frog

Hyla lanciformis Rocket Tree Frog Lithodytes lineatus Painted Antnest Frog

Hyla maomaratus Oreobates quixensis Common big headed Rain Frog

Hylomantis buckleyi Vanzolinius discodactylus Dark-blotched Whistling Frog

Hylomantis hulli

Hypsiboas boans Gladiator Tree Frog Ranidae True Frogs

Hypsiboas calcarata Convict Tree Frog Rana palmipes Neotropical Green Frog

Hypsiboas geographica Map Tree Frog

Hypsiboas punctatus Common Polkadot Tree Frog

10.5 Class
Hypsiboas geographica Map Tree Frog
Hypsiboas punctatus Common Polkadot Tree Frog

Osteocephalus cabrerai complex Forest bromeliad Tree Frog Araneae

Osteocephalus cf. deridens Nephila clavipes Golden Silk Spider
Osteocephalus leprieurii Common bromeliad Tree Frog Ancylometes terrenus Giant Fishing Spider
Osteocephalus planiceps Flat-headed bromeliad Tree Frog

Trachycephalus resinifictrix Amazonian Milk Tree Frog

Phyllomedusa tarsius Warty Monkey Frog 10.6 Class

Phyllomedusa tomopterna Barred Monkey Frog Insecta
Phyllomedusa vaillanti White-lined monkey Tree Frog
Scinax garbei Fringe lipped Tree Frog
Euchroma gigantea Giant Ceiba Borer
Scinax rubra Two-striped Tree Frog
Homoeotelus d'orbignyi Pleasing Fungus Beetle
Trachycephalus venulosus Common milk Tree Frog

Microhylidae Sheep Frogs
Canthon luteicollis
Chiasmocleis bassleri Bassler's Sheep Frog
Deltochilum howdeni

Dichotomius ohausi
Leptodactylidae Rain Frogs
Dichotomius prietoi
Edalorhina perezi Eyelashed Forest Frog
Eurysternus caribaeus
Prystimantis acuminatus Green Rain Frog
Eurysternus confusus
Prystimantis aff peruvianus Peruvian Rain Frog
Eurysternus foedus
Prystimantis altamazonicus Amazonian Rain Frog
Eurysternus inflexus
Prystimantis conspicillatus Chirping Robber Frog
Eurysternus plebejus
Prystimantis lanthanites Striped-throated Rain Frog

Prystimantis malkini Malkini's Rain Frog

Prystimantis martiae Marti's rainfrog
Panacanthus cuspidatus Spiny Devil Katydid
Prystimantis ockendeni complex Carabaya Rain Frog
Prystimantis sulcatus Broad-headed Rain Frog
Dysodius lunatus Lunate Flatbug
Prystimantis variabilis Variable Rain Frog

Hypnodactylus nigrovittatus Black-banded Robber Frog

Strabomantis sulcatus Broad-headed Rain Frog
Engystomops petersi Painted Forest Toadlet
Celmia celmus
Leptodactylus andreae Cocha Chirping Frog
Janthecla sista

Thecla aetolius Charaxinae

Thecla mavors Agrias claudina

Colobura annulata Archaeoprepona amphimachus

Colobura dirce Archaeoprepona demophon

Archaeoprepona demophon muson

Nymphalidae Archaeoprepona licomedes

Apaturinae Consul fabius

Doxocopa agathina Hypna clytemnestra

Doxocopa griseldis Memphis arachne

Doxocopa laurentia Memphis oenomaus

Doxocopa linda Memphis philomena

Memphis offa

Biblidinae Prepona eugenes

Biblis hyperia Prepona dexamenus

Callicore cynosure Prepona laertes

Catonephele acontius Prepona pheridamas

Catonephele esite Zaretis isidora

Catonephele numilia Zaretis itys

Diaethria clymena

Dynamine aerate Cyrestinae

Dynamine arthemisia Marpesia berania

Dynamine athemon Marpesia crethon

Dynamine gisella Marpesia petreus

Ectima thecla lerina

Eunica alpais Danainae

Eunica amelio Pieridae

Eunica clytia Appias drusilla

Eunica volumna Dismorphia pinthous

Hamadryas albicornus Eurema cf xanthochlora

Hamadryas arinome Perrhybris lorena

Hamadryas chloe Phoebis rurina

Hamadryas feronia

Hamadryas laodamia Danainae

Nessaea batesii Danaini

Nessaea hewitsoni Danaus plexippus

Nica flavilla Ithomiini

Panacea prola Aeria eurimidea

Panacea regina Ceratinia tutia

Paulogramma peristera Hypoleria sarepta

Phrrhogyra amphiro Hyposcada anchiala

Pyrrhogyra crameri Hyposcada illinissa

Pyrrhogyra cuparina Hypothyris anastasia

Pyrrhogyra cf nasica Hypothyris fluonia

Pyrrhogyra otolais Ithomia amarilla

Temenis laothoe Ithomia salapia

Mechanitis lysimnia

Mechanitis mazaeus Anartia jatrophae

Mechanitis messenoides Baeotus deucalion

Methona confusa psamathe Eresia eunice

Methone Cecilia Eresia pelonia

Oleria Gunilla Historis odius

Oleria ilerdina Historis acheronta

Oleria tigilla Metamorpha elisa

Tithorea harmonia Metamorpha sulpitia

Phyciodes plagiata

Heliconinae Siproeta stelenes

Acraeini Smyrna blomfildia

Actinote sp. Tigridia acesta


Dryas iulia Satyrinae

Eueides Eunice Brassolini

Eueides Isabella Bia actorion

Eueides lampeto Caligo eurilochus

Eueides lybia Caligo idomeneus idomeneides

Heliconius erato Caligo illioneus

Heliconius hecale Caligo teucer

Heliconius melponmene Catoblepia cassiope

Heliconius numata Caligo placidiamus

Heliconius sara Catoblepia berecynthia

Heliconius xanthocles Catoblepia cassiope

Heliconius doris Catoblepia generosa

Philaethria dido Catoblepia sorannus

Catoblepia xanthus

Limenitidinae Opsiphanes invirae

Adelpha amazona

Adelpha cocala Haeterini

Adelpha cytherea Cithaerias aurora

Adelpha erotia Cithaerias menander

Adelpha iphicleola Cithaerias pireta

Adelpha iphiclus Haetera macleannania

Adelpha lerna Haetera piera

Adelpha melona Pierella astyoche

Adelpha mesentina Pierella hortona

Adelpha naxia Pierella lamia

Adelpha panaema Pierella lena

Adelpha phrolseola Pierella lucia

Adelpha thoasa

Adelpha viola Morphini

Adelpha ximena Antirrhea hela

Antirrhea philoctetes avernus Common Brown Morpho

Nymphalinae Morpho Achilles

Anartia amathae Morpho deidamia

Morpho helenor Ancyluris etias

Morpho Menelaus Anteros renaldus

Morpho peleides Calospila cilissa

Morpho polycarmes Calospila partholon

Calospila emylius

Satyrini Calydna venusta

Caeruleuptychia scopulata Cartea vitula

Chloreuptychia agatha Emesis fatinella

Chloreuptychia herseis Emesis Lucinda

Euptychia binoculata Emesis mandana

Euptychia labe Emesis ocypore

Euptychia myncea Eurybia dardus

Euptychia renata Eurybia elvina

Hermeuptychia hermes Eurybia franciscana

Sarota chrysus Eurybia halimede

Sarota spicata Eurybia unxia

Setabis gelasine Hyphilaria parthenis

Stalachtis calliope Isapis agyrtus

Stalachtis phaedusa Ithomiola floralis

Synargis orestessa Lasaia agesilaus narses

Magneuptychia analis Lasaia pseudomeris

Magneuptychia libye Leucochimona vestalis

Magneuptychia ocnus Livendula amaris

Magneuptychia ocypete Livendula violacea

Magneuptychia tiessa Lyropteryx appolonia

Pareuptychia hesionides Pareuptychia hesionides Mesophthalma idotea

Pareuptychia ocirrhoe Mesosemia loruhama

Taygetis Cleopatra Cleopatra Satyr Mesosemia latizonata

Taygetis echo Echo Satyr Napaea heteroea

Taygetis mermeria Nymphidium mantus

Taygetis sosis Sosis Satyr Nyphidium nr minuta

Nymphidium lysimon

Papilionidae Nymphidium balbinus

Battus belus varus Nymphidium caricae

Battus polydamas Nymphidium chione

Papilio androgeus Pandemos pasiphae

Papilio thoas cyniras Perophtalma lasus

Parides aeneas bolivar Pirascca tyriotes

Parides Lysander Rhetus arcius

Parides pizarro Rhetus periander

Parides sesostris


Amarynthis meneria

Ancyluris endaemon

Ancyluris aulestes

11 Appendix B – GVI Yachana Reserve Map