You are on page 1of 62

Global Vision International, 2010 Report Series No.


GVI Ecuador
Rainforest Conservation and Community Development

Friday 2nd

Phase Report 102 April – Friday 11th June 2010

GVI Ecuador/Rainforest Conservation and Community Development Expedition Report 102 ` Submitted in whole to Global Vision International Yachana Foundation Museo Ecuatoriano de Ciencias Naturales (MECN) Produced by Chris Beirne – Field Manager Oliver Burdekin – Field Staff Simon Mitchell –Field Staff Jennifer Sinasac – Field Staff Kristina Spicer – Short-term Intern and
Bianca Amato Benny Mansfield Kristie Callahan Adam Goldberg Laura Jones Joe Langridge Thomas Smith Edwin Vaca Rebecca Barnard Melissa Bobowski Kyrie Burgoine Melissa Gardiner Hugh Greasley Jonathan Hamer Scholar Scholar Intern Intern Intern Intern Intern Intern Volunteer Volunteer Volunteer Volunteer Volunteer Volunteer Jacqueline Le Roux Chris Morgan Charlotte Mugarra D’Cruze Heather Murray Benjamin Opeka Sophie Pesquidous Anastasia Porteous Anneka Sutton Sloan Sweigart
Jose Grefa Bexi Jimenez Jairo Cerda Cristian Falcones

Volunteer Volunteer Volunteer Volunteer Volunteer Volunteer Volunteer Volunteer Volunteer
Pasante Pasante Pasante Pasante

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

Executive Summary
This report documents the work of Global Vision International’s (GVI) Rainforest Conservation and Community Development Expedition in Ecuador’s Amazon region and run in partnership with the Yachana Foundation, based at the Yachana Reserve in the province of Napo. During the second phase of 2010 from Friday 2nd April to Friday 11th June, GVI has: 

Added 18 new species to the reserve list, all birds; Tiny Hawk (Accipiter superciliosus), Pale-tailed Barbthroat (Threnetes leucurus), White-necked Jacobin (Florisuga mellivora), Tawny-throated Leaftosser (Sclerurus mexicanus), Black-banded Woodcreeper

(Dendrocolaptes picumnus), Chestnut-winged Foliage-gleaner (Philydor erythropterum), Plain Xenops (Xenops minutus), Bicoloured Antbird (Gymnopithys leucaspis), Pygmy Antwren (Myrmotherula brachyura), Crowned Slaty Flycatcher (Griseotyrannus

aurantioatrocristatus), White-winged Becard (Pachyramphus polychopterus), Goldencrowned Spadebill (Platyrinchus coronatus), White-thighed Swallow (Neochelidon tibialis), Black-faced Dacnis (Dacnis lineata), White-vented Euphonia (Euphonia minuta), Fulvous Shrike-tanager (Lanio fulvus), Masked Tanager (Tangara nigrocincta), Canada Warbler (Wilsonia canadensis).   Continued assesseing the effect of habitat change in understory bird communities. Continued to collect data on the effect of structural habitat change on the amphibian and

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

butterfly communities.     Continued to sample dung beetles within different habitats around the reserve. Continued with English lessons for local school children in Puerto Rico twice a week. Continued giving English classes at Puerto Salazar whenever possible. Welcomed four pasantes (work experience students) from the Yachana Technical High

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

local conservationist.


Continued helping the local organisation Amanecer Campisino with their projects in the

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



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


List of Figures
Figure 1.1 – Map showing GVI Amazon location in Ecuador

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

Figure 2.1.2 - Summary data from Phase 102

Figure 2.1.3 - Summary data for the whole project to date

Figure 2.2.1 - The number of species recorded by each observer

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

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

Figure 4.1.2 - Number of individuals found on visual encounter surveys in Phase 102 Figure 4.1.3 - Number of individuals found in pitfall traps in total in the project so far

Figure 4.1.4 - Number of individuals found in total for visual encounter surveys in the project so far Figure 4.1.5 - Distrobution of species diversity at each pitfall trap

Figure 5.1.1 - The new standardised dot codes introduced in week six of Phase 101 and used consistently through Phase 102 Figure 5.1.2 - Individual butterfly numbers as distributed in trap sites along the road, on the trail and in the forest for Frontier and Columbia Trails

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




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

Reserve is owned and managed by the Yachana Foundation. It is surrounded by large areas of pasture land, small active cacao farms and currently un-mapped disturbed primary forest. The road within the Yachana Reserve is a large stone and gravel based road which dissects the primary forest to the north and the abandoned cacao plantations and grassland areas to the south.

GVI Amazon Rio Napo, Napo Province

Figure 1.1 Map showing GVI Amazon location in Ecuador


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

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

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

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

the support of MECN for the collection of specimens. The data and specimens collected by GVI are being lodged with the MECN in order to make this information nationally and internationally available, and to provide verification of the field data. MECN technicians are continuously invited to the Yachana Reserve to conduct in-field training and education for GVI and Yachana students, as well as explore research opportunities otherwise unavailable. A major goal for GVI’s research is to shift focus from identifying species in the reserve to collecting data for management concerns and publication. In collaboration with all local and international partners, GVI focuses its research on answering ecological questions related to conservation. With this in mind, several key goals have been identified:          

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

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



Avian Research
Avian Mistnetting

Introduction As human populations grow, an understanding of anthropogenic change is essential to understand the conservation of the natural world. Habitat loss is undoubtedly one of the greatest threats facing tropical forest diversity (Hawes et al. 2008), with over half the

potential tropical closed-canopy forest, defined as tree crown coverage exceeding 60%, having already been removed and put to other use (Wright 2005). However, there is hope. Despite deforestation reaching alarming levels, 15% of the land deforested in the 1990s has been reclaimed by natural secondary succession (Wright 2005). This large scale expansion of secondary landscapes may have important implications for long-term conservation of wildlife (Faria et al, 2007). The total coverage of non-native and native regeneration will most probably rise further in the near future due to private investment in carbonsequestration projects in the tropics and increased interest in bio fuels and timber (Barlow et al. 2006).

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

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

high levels of species richness compared to primary or relatively undisturbed forest (Barlow et al, 2006). Despite these encouraging results, there are a whole host of problems with the existing studies which make a strong conclusion of the value of secondary forest for Neotropical birds impossible to determine (Gardner et al. 2006). For example, several of the studies attribute the high species richness to the close proximity of primary habitat, resulting in primary species being transiently recorded in secondary habitat. Several studies also lacked a good primary forest baseline with which to compare their results (Barlow et al. 2006). This aims to address the problems highlighted by Gardner et al (2007), to compare understory bird communities in the disturbed secondary patches of the Yachana Reserve with the relatively undisturbed patches. Methods Study Plots Four net locations were established around the reserve; two in relatively disturbed areas, two in relatively undisturbed areas (see Fig. 2.1.1). The net locations were no closer than 500m apart at their nearest point as Barlow and Peres (2004) concluded, based on recaptures of marked individuals, that plots 500m apart were spatially independent. The net locations are restricted to trails within the reserve, as the hilly topography makes establishing nets in other locations impossible without destroying large areas of native vegetation. Plots are random with respect to tree fall gaps, fruiting trees or other factors which may influence capture rates. Mistnetting Understory mistnetting was used to examine the avifauna at each of the four sites within the reserve. Each site was sampled for 69 to 70 hours between the 12th April 2010 and the 3rd June 2010. Four 12 x 2.5m mist nets with 10-40m spacing (to allow for difficult topography) were established at each site. All nets could be checked within a 10-15 minute periods. Captured birds were then released away from the net locations from an established banding station. Nets were opened between 6.30am and 11.10am for four successive days, allowing extra hours or days to account for periods of persistent wind or heavy rain. Nets were checked every 30 minutes. All captures were placed in a bird bag and returned to the banding station where they were be identified to species, banded, weighed, measured and sexed whenever possible. All birds were banded to identify recaptures, except

hummingbirds, which have extremely delicate legs.


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

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

Vegetation Mapping Around each mist-netting site six 100m transects were assessed. Each transect started 250m away from the mist-netting center point and ended 150m away from the center point and were spaced evenly to avoid psuedoreplication. The transects were stratified and

placed randomly with regard to topography and habitat. Along each transect, five canopy coverage estimations were made by two independent observers and the dominant type of canopy was noted (Absent, Low, Middle and High). All Melostomatacae and Heliconidae within five metres either side of the transect line were counted. All trees >30cm Diameter at Breast Height (DBH) were measured within five metres either side of the transect line. The presence or absence of trees of the genus Theobroma and coffee plants were also noted. Results Vegetation Profiling On the basis of vegetation mapping results from Phases 094 (October-December 2009) and 101 (January-March 2010) Cascada and Ficus are classified as ‘more disturbed’ and Laguna and Frontier are classified as ‘less disturbed’. 12

Avifaunal Sampling In Phase 102 (Fig. 2.1.2), 89 birds were captured in 279 hours of mist-netting between the dates of 12th April 2010 and 3rd June 2010. Individuals caught at each site varied from eleven individuals to 30. Each site was subjected to between 69 hours and 70 net hours of sampling. The total number of individuals captured in the ‘more disturbed’ areas was 32, whereas the total number of individuals captured in the ‘less disturbed’ areas was 57. The number of species captured at the ‘less disturbed’ sites was also lower than the number captured in the ‘more disturbed’ sites (see Fig.2.1.2). The understory birds caught at each of the ‘more disturbed’ areas represented only ten different bird families, where as birds caught at the ‘less disturbed’ areas each represented by eight and six different bird families. Capture efficiencies, represented by number of individuals per mist net hour, where also higher in the ‘less disturbed’ sites (0.24 and 0.22 indiv.h-1) in comparison to the ‘more disturbed’ sites (0.19 and 0.12 indiv.h-1). Figure 2.1.2 Summary data from Phase 102 Frontier Laguna Net Hours 69.40 69.40 Number of Individuals 30 27 Individuals per net hour 0.43 0.39 Total Num. of species 17 15 Species per net hour 0.24 0.22 Total Num. of famillies 5 10 UID Birds 0 0 Recaptures 5 4

Cascada 70.00 21 0.30 13 0.19 8 2 4

Ficus 69.40 11 0.16 8 0.12 6 0 0

Total 279.00 89 0.32 29 0.10 13 2 13

Figure 2.1.3 shows summary data for all of the mist netting sessions to date. All locations have been subjected to between 200 and 207 hours of sampling. Frontier appears to be the most diverse site, with 34 species recorded, followed by Laguna with 31. Cascada has produced 24 species where as Ficus has recorded only 15. Frontier and Laguna have recorded many more individuals than Cascada and Ficus too. In terms of families the ‘less disturbed’ sites of Frontier and Laguna support 14, whereas the ‘more disturbed’ Cascada and Ficus have recorded eleven and nine respectively. Figure 2.1.3 Summary data for the whole project to date Frontier Laguna Cascada Ficus Total Net Hours 200.50 206.50 206.44 204.56 819.20 Number of Individuals 113 88 60 35 296 Individuals per net hour 0.56 0.43 0.29 0.17 0.36 Total Num. of species 34 31 24 15 57 Species per net hour 0.17 0.15 0.12 0.07 0.13 Total Num. of famillies 14 14 11 9 22 13

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

Looking at the summary data from the project as a whole, it would appear that the quality of sites is currently as follows: Frontier>Laguna>Cascada>Ficus. When related to the current vegetation mapping classifications of each site, the data suggests that ‘less disturbed’ sites are able to support more individual, more species and more bird families than ‘more disturbed’ sites. Again, this is currently just a suggestion. More data is needed before firm statistically significant conclusions can be made. Future Work Both the understory mist-netting and vegetation mapping will be continued in their current forms as they appear to be functioning effectively. 2.2 Point Counts

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

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

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

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

Possible Methodologies for Assessing Avian Assemblages Several survey methods are available for surveying avian communities, each with unique limitations and advantages. A mist-netting methodology was initiated on the Yachana

Reserve in the latter part of 2009 aimed at elucidating the difference in the avian communities between disturbed secondary relatively undisturbed patches primary forest patches. Mist-netting has the advantage of capturing cryptic, secretive and otherwise

difficult to identify species and allowing the marking and recapturing of individuals (Sutherland, 1996). However, mist-netting has limitations in that it requires a large amount of time investment in order to produce sufficient data - only a sub-section of the avian community (undergrowth and sub-canopy species) are recorded (Sutherland, 1996). It was therefore considered that it would be worthwhile to conduct a point count methodology as well as mist-netting work.


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

A plethora of literature exists detailing models and methodologies to mitigate biases in detection rates, (E.g Nichols et al, 2000; Farnsworth et al., 2002; Royle & Nichols, 2003; Alledrege et al., 2007; Rosenstock et al., 2002). However, many of these deal with the influence of detection bias on population estimates rather than assessments of the number of different species present, where a solution to the problem is to invest a large number of observer hours. By plotting the cumulative number of species against sampling effort and then determining the effort required for species accumulation curves to reach an asymptote most bias in detection rates is accounted for, (e.g., Scott and Ramsey 1981; Shui & Lee, 2003). Using Untrained Volunteers to Undertake Avian Point Counts Although some studies have demonstrated the capacity of untrained volunteers (rather than experienced observers) to undertake biological surveys, little has been attempted on avian point counts in tropical forests. Some biological studies have shown training reduces

observer variability in visual-based assessments on habitat assessment (Hannaford et al, 1996) and that individuals improve at perceiving biological motion with practice (Grossman, 2004). It has also been shown that whilst only modest amounts of training are needed to remove false-positive results, biases of false-negatives are only removed with much greater observer experience (Tyre et al., 2003).

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

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

Twelve point count locations were distributed across forest of varying levels of disturbance. Six were located in each primary-type relatively undisturbed and secondary-type disturbed. The existing trail network was used to for point count locations, since for counts of infinite radius (which normally record birds from 75m away or more), the influence of the forest disturbance of trails is very minimal. Point count sites were located every 200m along a survey transect following similar methodologies (E.g. Lees & Peres, 2006; Edwards et al., 2010). This distance allowed for spatial independence of sites and minimised pseudo-

replication of individual birds. At each site staff members and volunteers conducted a daily point count. These began at around 0600 with each count lasting 15 minutes. During this period observers attempted to identify all the species they could see or hear in the area independently. A complete set of twelve point counts was deemed too many to be feasible in a single morning (since bird song had dropped to virtually nothing by as early as 10am on some mornings). Each

volunteer conducted six sets of counts, on as many occasions as possible, in order to try and generate a statistically significant and independent set of counts for each individual. The starting point for each set of point counts was rotated every day as was the order of points undertaken. Results Collected results took a significant amount of time to fully summarise. Therefore all that is presented here are the results for increasing detection rates of six volunteers. In due course it is expected that a full summary and analysis of results will be presented including the results of all volunteers and investigating the differences in the avian communities in primary and secondary forest.


Figure 2.2.1 shows that on an observer’s first survey they show between 0.26-0.45% congruence with the fully trained staff observer. By the fourth survey congruence was

between 0.31-0.93%, this suggests a degree of improvement with increasing hours training. The degree of improvement is shown visually on Figure 2.2.2.

Fig. 2.2.2 shows the percentage of congruence with staff member versus hours of training the observer received up to that point. This graph shows the information contained in the previous table as a scatter graph. The mean number of species recorded by each observer (expressed as a percentage of the mean number of species recorded by staff on the same survey), is plotted against the number of cumulative hours training received by each Figure 2.2.1 The Number of Species Recorded by Each Observer
Survey 1 Adam Goldberg (AG) Mean Number of Species per Point AG Percentage of Staff Mean Recorded Chris Morgan (CM) Mean Number of Species per Point CM Percentage of Staff Mean Recorded Kristina Spicer (KS) Mean Number of Species per Point KS Percentage of Staff Mean Recorded Edwin Vaca (EV) Mean Number of Species per Point EV Percentage of Staff Mean Recorded Anastasia Porteous (AP) Mean Number of Species per Point AP Percentage of Staff Mean Recorded Rebecca Barnard (RB) Mean Number of Species per Point RB Percentage of Staff Mean Recorded 0.41 0.42 0.97 0.76 2.66 1.66 4.5 4.16 0.46 0.5 0.67 1 3 2 2.66 1.6 0.26 0.25 0.38 0.41 1.5 1 1.5 1.5 0.13 0.20 0.17 0.31 3 2.66 3 2.5 0.38 0.54 0.5 0.77 0.78 0.61 2.16 2.5 2 2.83 3.6 3.83 0.45 0.57 0.64 0.93 0.88 2.25 2.75 2.33 4.33 4.83 Survey 2 Survey 3 Survey 4 Survey 5 Survey 6


Fig. 2.2.2 The percentage of congruence with staff member versus hours of training the observer received up to that point
1.2 Adam Goldberg 1 0.8 Chris Morgan Kristina Spicer Edwin Vaca

0.4 0.2 0 0 10 20 30 40 50

Anastasia Porteous Rebecca Barnard Linear (Adam Goldberg) Linear (Chris Morgan) Linear (Kristina Spicer) Linear (Edwin Vaca) Linear (Anastasia Porteous)

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

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

These initial results seem likely to be statistically significant which is very promising and suggest that the current methodological is setup correctly in order to produce usable results for a wider study. Therefore the project will continue to run under the same methodology as 19

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


Mammal Incidentals

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


Herpetological Research
The Effect of Structural Habitat Change on Herpetofaunal Communities

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

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

Two recent multiple taxa assessments, conducted on the cubraca cacao plantations of Bahia, Brazil (Pardini et al. IN PRESS) and eucalyptus plantations of the Jari forestry project, Brazil (Barlow et al. 2007), found that responses to structural habitat change were taxon specific. Barlow et al. (2007) found that four of the fifteen taxa analysed (trees and lianas, birds, fruit feeding butterflies, and leaf litter amphibians) were found to decrease in species richness with increasing habitat disturbance. However, five taxa (large mammals, epigiec arachnids, lizards, dung beetles and bats) exhibit idiosyncratic responses to habitat change (Barlow et al. 2007). Both studies concluded that responses to structural habitat change will be species specific, not simply taxon specific. Analysis of a generalised taxon response is likely to hide a higher level of species specific disturbance responses which are important when designing conservation strategies (Barlow et al 2007; Pardini et al. 2009). These studies highlight the importance of performing multiple taxa assessments that are species specific relating to the conservation value of secondary and plantation forests. Problem Statement The Neotropics are estimated to contain nearly 50% of the worlds amphibians (IUCN, 2007) and 32% of the worlds reptiles (Young et al. 2004), this equates to over 3000 species of each taxon. Within the continental Neotropics, the 17 countries in Central and South America, there are 1685 species of amphibian and 296 species of reptiles considered endangered. Amphibians and reptiles are considered to be the most threatened groups of terrestrial vertebrates (J. Gardner 2007b). There have been many factors implicated in

threatening populations of amphibians and reptiles, including habitat loss and change, the virulent Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis pathogen, climate change (Whitfield et al. 2007), ultraviolet-B radiation (Broomhall et al. 2000), and agrochemical contaminants (Bridges et al. 2000). Current State of Amphibian and Reptile Research Amphibians and reptiles are important primary, mid-level and top consumers in Neotropical ecosystems; therefore, it is important to understand the responses of these organisms to structural habitat change (Bell et al. 2006). Despite its apparent severity, the amount of research time given to studying the impacts of habitat change on amphibian and reptile 21

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

A recent global scale review of the state of amphibian and reptile research regarding structural habitat change highlighted several serious deficiencies: i) There is currently a strong study bias away from the Neotropics towards North America and Australia. ii) Published studies report contradictory responses of amphibian and reptile populations to habitat change. iii) There are several common limitations in study methodology and analysis (Gardner et al. 2007a). Aims of the Research  Assess the ability of secondary forest (abandoned cacao plantation) to preserve leaflitter herpetofaunal richness, distribution and abundance in comparison to primary forest habitat.   Understand the effects of structural habitat change within the Neotropics. Identify the responses of different herpetofaunal groups/species to structural habitat change. Methods In Phase 102, pitfall data was collected for 10 days (16th April to 25th April) and 15 visual encounter surveys were conducted from 15th April to 1st June. Nocturnal Visual Encounter Surveys Twelve 75m transects in both the primary and secondary locations were established. Care was taken to space transects sufficiently to avoid psuedoreplication. Transects were marked with coloured transect tape to avoid unnecessary habitat modification. Where possible, the transects were located at least 10m from streams and 100m from forest edges to avoid biases resulting from increases in species richness and abundance, which could result in confusion about the true effect of structural habitat change on amphibian and reptile diversity.

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

yield greater numbers of individuals per effort than other sampling methods in recent publications (Ernst and Rodel, 2004; Donnelly et al 2005) and GVI’s own preliminary investigations. Each transect was searched by six observers (strip width = 6m, duration = 1h 30m). Pitfall Trapping Twelve pitfall arrays were also established in both primary and secondary forest. Each array consists of four 25L buckets with 8m long by 50cm high plastic drift fence connecting them in linear shaped design. When open, the pitfalls were checked once a day.

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

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

Ecuatoriano de Ciencias Naturales (MECN). Surveying primary rainforest habitat is a privileged opportunity; however there is the potential to negatively affect the ecosystem by passing infections between sites and species. Good practices are strictly adhered to so as to ensure transmissions are not possible. This is achieved by systematic cleaning of tools, equipment, and sterile bags are changed when handling different individuals. Under no circumstances did amphibians or reptiles come in contact with exposed human skin tissue. Results Species Encountered in 101 During this phase, 284 identified reptile and amphibian individuals were encountered, comprising 19 species of amphibian and 16 species of reptile.


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

Visual Encounter Surveys in Phase 102 Figure 4.1.2 Number of individuals found on visual encounter surveys in Phase 102
Amphibians and reptiles Total
(approx 1350 mins survey time with 5/6 searchers)

Amphibians 122

Reptiles 14


Species Encountered Overall in the Project So Far: During the whole project to date, 1666 identified reptile and amphibian individuals have been encountered. Pitfalls Figure 4.1.3 Number of individuals found in pitfall traps in total in the project so far Amphibians and reptiles Total 762 627 135 Amphibians Reptiles

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







Figure 4.1.5 Distribution of species diversity at each pitfall trap

Pitfall species diversity was projected onto a map of the Yachana Reserve. The projection shows clearly that there appears to be higher species diversity at the less disturbed ‘primary’ sites as opposed to the ‘secondary’ sites. Discussion The amphibian and reptile work continues to provide a wealth of species which are continuing to show that some species are more prevalent than others and there are certainly some differences in the numbers and types of species found within different areas of the reserve. The amphibians Ameerga bilinguis, Pristimantis kichwarum, Pristimantis lanthanites, Bolitoglossa peruvianus (Dwarf-climbing Salamander) and the lizard Lepsoma parietale are still found in greater numbers than other species at various habitat types around the reserve. The diversity projection (Fig. 4.1.5) appears to work well, in future reports this will be expand to inclued all trapping techniques and surveys.

Data collection is now complete.

The sites have been surveyed for one full year.


following phases work will continue with new pitfall sites and visual encounter survey transects. As a continuation of this project, the new sites will include riparian habitats in addition to disturbed and less disturbed habitats.

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


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


Butterfly Research
Assessment of Antropogenic Disturbance on Butterfly Communities

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

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

The Yachana Reserve comprises approximately 1000 hectares of predominantly primary lowland rainforest in addition to a matrix of abandoned plantations, grassland, riparian and regenerating forest. A road 15m wide runs through the middle of the reserve, connecting it to the surrounding agricultural landscape. In addition to this, there are a number of trails on either side of the road which are walked regularly by individuals and groups of up to eight volunteers. This presents an excellent opportunity to investigate the effects of disturbance from the road, in addition to making paired comparisons between disturbed trails and nearby undisturbed forest transects. Sparrow et al. (1994) recommend including both disturbed and undisturbed habitat types in monitoring programs investigating butterfly community variation. Methods Data collection continued on the established series of 200m transects on the Columbia and Frontier Trails. The same sampling sites located every 50m continued to be monitored. The Columbia and Frontier Trails run roughly perpendicular to the road and receive heavy usage from GVI volunteers, Yachana tourtists and locals. Each sampling site was paired with an 26

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

Since data collection to explore escape rates and the nymphalid-vegetation relationship had both been undertaken at the outset of the project, it was not necessary to undertake further vegetation mapping or escape experiments during Phase 102. Results Overall, 355 individual butterflies of 51 positively-identified species were trapped during two 14-day sampling periods from April–June 2010 (Figure 5.1.2). Of those, 23 individuals are still pending identification. No new species were identified for the Yachana Reserve species list, however those still awaiting identification may produce new reserve species.


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

individuals collected on the trail and forest sites for both Frontier and Columbia Trails were comparable (Figure 5.1.2).

A preliminary analysis of species diversity by assessing the number of species shows that there was no difference in the number of species collected in the road and trail disturbance sites, both with 31 species found at each area over the 28 days sampling period (Figure 5.1.3). However, the preliminary species found at each site differed; Archaeoprepona

demophon (Charaxinae: Preponini), Opsiphanes invirae (Satyrinae: Brassolini) and Colobura annulata (Nymphalinae: Nyphalini) were predominantly found at the highly-disturbed road sites. Tigridia acesta (Nymphalinae: Nymphalini), Nessaea hewitsonii (Biblidinae: Epicaliini), Colobura annulata (Nymphalinae: Nymphalini) and Nessaea obrina (Biblidinae: Epicaliini) were predominantly found along semi-disturbed trail sites.

Figure 5.1.2 Individual butterfly numbers as distributed in trap sites along the road, on the trail and in the forest for Frontier and Columbia Trails. Frontier Road Trail Forest Total 65 59 63 187 Columbia 40 63 65 168 Total 105 122 128 355

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


Figure 5.1.3 Species diversity indicated by number of species collected at each of the disturbance levels – road, trail and forest for Frontier and Columbia Trails during Phase 102. Total number of species for the three disturbance levels are indicated in the final “Frontier and Columbia” column. Frontier Road Trail Forest Discussion In phase 101, a total of 187 individuals were collected in the traps; 355 individuals in phase 102 accounts for a 53% increase in the number of individuals trapped in the same 28-day sampling period. This increase can be a result of a number of factors. The seasonality of lowland rainforest could affect the number of butterflies. During the months of April and May 2010, there was an increase in the amount of rain compared to the previous phase. Seasonal effects in the feeding and reproductive cycles of butterflies can account for an increase at various times of the year. However, this study will need to be continued for over a year to gain the effects of annual trends in the butterflies feeding and breeding cycles. This increase could also be an effect of the quality of the bait used; however, no deviations were made in the process and fermentation times allotted for the preparation of the bait. 23 17 27 Columbia 19 26 24
Frontier and Columbia

31 31 38

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

This project will continue using the same methods as initially set out in the project proposal (Brimble, 2009) next phase to acquire a larger sample size. A new, comprehensive

Nymphalidae butterfly identification plates have been developed for more accurate identification on this project, ready for the upcoming Phase 103. Specimens and photos of the unidentified species have been retained for future identification.


Benthic Surveying

The following is a pilot study into the potential use of BMWP score system for the assessment of stream quality in the Yachana Reserve. The report was composed by a short term intern, Kristina Spicer. Introduction The BMWP (Biological Monitoring Working Party) score system was developed in the UK as a quick and easy method to assess water quality, using macroinvertebrates as bioindicators. BMWP score system utilizes the fact that each macroinvertebrate family exhibits different sensitivity to pollutant and their presence or absence defines level of water quality. Each family is therefore assigned a sensitivity value ranging from 1, being the most tolerant to 10, being most sensitive (Stein 2008). The family level identification makes the index more practical and applicable through out the world (Cao, 1997); therefore, it has been successfully applied in many countries. Czerniawska-Kusza, (2005), investigating

macroinvertebrate communities in the lower Nysa Klodzka River catchment in Poland, found strong potential for application of the BMWP system in Poland. Further, in the tropics Azrina (2006) used BMWP index to assess the water quality of the Langat River in Peninsular Malaysia.

In the tropics, the use of benthic macroinvertebrates for assessment of water quality is yet not well established, due to the fact that knowledge of their ecology and distribution is still incomplete (Stein, 2008). However, the necessity for development of biomonitoring has been recognized and consequently there has been increase in the research and development of biological monitoring and potential use of BMWP score system in the tropics. In the Dominican Republic, Soldner (2004) sampled macroinvertebrates within the Yacque del Norte River catchment area to determine whether macroinvertebrate monitoring techniques that are routinely used elsewhere could be successfully applied in the tropics. They found that, since BMWP scores have been developed for British macroinvertebrates, not all families found in the study had designated scores and therefore had to be excluded 31

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

In the Yachana Reserve, previously Escolar (2009) used EPT and Sensitivity Indices to assess the water quality, though their results were contradictory. Therefore, the aims of this study were:     To determine whether BMWP index can be applied in the Yachana Reserve. To assess and compare water quality of primary rainforest stream and stream near the villages. To give the account and comparison of diversity of macroinvertebrates in both streams. To determine whether kick nets are more efficient and reliable than surber nets in sampling benthic macroinvertebrates. Methods The study was conducted in Yachana Reserve and village of Puerto Rico. Two sites were selected. The first site was within Stream 1 of the Yachana Reserve in primary forest. The second site selected, Stream 2, was in close proximity of the community of Puerto Rico. Stream 1 has been chosen on the assumption that it is of a good quality since there are no anthropogenic disturbances, while Stream 2 is in close proximity of farmland and is subjected to uncontrolled pesticide influx. The main criteria in selection of two sites were safe and easy access, similar width, presence of riffles and 100 m distance from any road.

At each site three measurements of width of the stream were taken and flow velocity was measured by timing a floating object over a 10m stretch of the river with the stop watch. For the collection of the macroinvertebrates a hand held net was used. At each site four

samples were taken by employing kick sampling technique. One observer was disturbing and kicking the substrate for three minutes, while the other was catching dislodged invertebrates in a net held at a short distance downstream. The content of the net was then emptied on the tray where another two observers were sorting and placing 32

macroinvertebrates in the killing jars with 70% ethanol.

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

recorded, then BMWP indices for all sites were calculated. Results Stream 1 in the primary forest was sampled on two occasions; on the 25th May 2010 and 26th May 2010 and four samples were taken each day. In total 209 individuals belonging to 19 families were found. The most diverse order was Trichoptera, represented by four different families, followed by Coleoptera and Ephemeroptera both represented by three families. The most abundant order was Coleoptera (69 individuals), followed by Trichoptera (53) and Ephemeroptera (42), (see Appendix 10.3). Stream 2 was sampled on the 24th May 2010 and 27th May 2010, and four samples in total were taken. 246 individuals, belonging to 17 families were found. The most diverse order was Diptera, represented by four families, followed by Coleoptera (three families), and Ephemeroptera, Odonata, Trichoptera and Oligochaeta, all represented by two families. The most abundant order was Ephemeroptera (51), followed by Coleoptera (48 individuals) and Trichoptera (47), (see Appendix 10.3).

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

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

Figure 6.1.1: BMWP scores for Stream 1 Samples 25/05/10 26/05/10 BMWP 134 119 33 Mean BMWP 126.5

Plot 1, at Stream 2 scored 90, while plot 2 scored 92. Mean BMWP index for Stream 2 was 91 (see Fig. 6.1.2), which indicates regular quality, eutrophic, medium polluted stream. Figure 6.1.2: BMWP scores for Stream 2 Samples 24/05/10 27/05/10 BMWP 90 92 Mean BMWP 91

Discussion High BMWP score of Stream 1 is associated with clean, unpolluted conditions in primary forest. On the contrary, lower BMWP score (91) of Stream 2 was expected, as it is in close proximity of farm and certain influx of pesticides can be expected. However, as Stream 2 is not surrounded by vast area of farmland, the medium polluted score fits in with our expectations. Our results correlate with findings of Azrina (2006). They found that pristine upstream stations of Langat River scored high BMWP indices, while downstream stations which received anthropogenic impact scored lower, indicating lower water quality. Therefore it can be assumed that BMWP scoring system can be used in and around Yachana Reserve. However, even though BMWP index has been reported easily applicable and reliable in assessing water quality in other countries, results obtained from it should be regarded with some caution (Soldner, 2004). Ideally, it should be adapted to the

country it is used in. Adaptations should include additions of new families and changes in some scores (Zamora-Munoz, 1995). Since not enough samples were taken, further statistical analysis of the sample would be unreliable and therefore has not been performed.

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

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


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

Furthermore, the identification key used was quite basic and substantial amount of individuals had to be classed as other, which meant their BMWP score was 0. potentially resulted in limited accuracy of the study. This

To further help with identification

laminated plates from Contreras (2008) were used, however photos were so shaded that they were not useful for identification of Ephemeroptera, since their gills, which are key identification features could not be distinguished. Conclusion and Recommendations BMWP score system could be used in Yachana Reserve, although potentially one adapted to the Neotropics would gather better results. A photograph or diagramatic key with a larger number of individuals should be used in the future. Ideally, a benthic macroinvertebrate key for Yachana Reserve should be constructed and potential bioindicators should be identified. Also, more samples should be taken to allow reliable statistical analysis as well as greater area should be sampled. Sampling should be done using the combination of surber and kick nets.

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


Community Development Projects
Colegio Técnico Yachana (Yachana Technical High School) Four current

GVI continues to work closely with the Yachana Technical High School.

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

between the students and GVI volunteers and/or staff. The students are of great assistance during field work, sharing their knowledge about local uses for plants as well as helping with the scheduled project work. They share their culture with volunteers and allow a greater insight into their background, teaching traditional basket-weaving, traditional achiotepainting. The benefits to the students are large, as they learn about the realities of

conserving and managing a reserve first-hand, along with the techniques used for monitoring different speices. They also get to practise and improve their conversational English

language skills for an extended period of time, during the field work, but also around base camp. This sort of shared practical learning experience is invaluable in the developing world and those students who have the opportunity and interest to join GVI for a period of time (whether it be two weeks of longer periods), make great progress in their English language as well as having the opportunity to experience inter-cultural exchange with native English speakers from different parts of the globe. It is hoped that these exchanges will continue in the future as they are beneficial to GVI volunteers, staff and of course to the students themselves. 7.2 TEFL at Puerto Rico

Fifteen English classes were given at Puero Rico this phase. This resulted in 60 ‘volunteer hours’ of teaching, to 22 older students (7-13 years old) and 14 younger students (4-7 years old). The next expedition will see the continuation of these lessons, augmented by an occasional tropical ecology class given at the end of each five weeks. The English lessons and interaction with the Puerto Rico community has had the long term aim of developing and encorporating environmental education for the children at the school. One conservation class was given druring the expedition. They addressed the topics: Why is rainforest Important?, What happens if you cut down the rainforest?, What does GVI do on the Yachana Reserve? 7.3 English Classes at Puerto Salazar

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

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


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

 

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

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

 

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

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

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

structured teaching times within this community.



General References

Allen, T., Ginkbeiner, S.L., and Johnson, D.H., 2004. Comparison of detection rates of breeding marsh birds in passive and playback surveys at Lacreek National Wildlife refuge, South Dakota. Waterbirds 27, 277-281. Bennett, A. F., 1991. Roads, roadsides and wildlife conservation: A review. In: Saunders, D. A., Hobbs, R. J. (eds.). Nature Conservation 2: The role of corridors. Chipping Norton, NSW, Australia: Surrey Beatty 99-118. Daszak, P., Berger, L., Cunningham, A.A., Hyatt, A.D., Green, D.E., Speare. R., 1999. Emerging infectious diseases and amphibian population declines. Emerging Infectious Diseases. 5, 735-48. Ehrlich, P. R., Raven, P. H., 1965. Butterflies and plants: A study in co-evolution. Evolution 18: 586-608. Gardner T.A., Fitzherbert E.B., Drewes R.C., Howell K.M., Caro T., 2007. Spatial and temporal patterns of abundance and diversity of an east African leaf litter amphibian fauna. Biotropica 39(1):105-113. Heyer W.R., Donnelly M.A., McDiarmid R.W., Hayek L.A.C., Foster M.S., 1994. Measuring and Monitoring Biological Diversity - Standard Methods for Amphibians. Kroodsma, D.E., 1984. Songs of the Alder Flycatcher (Empidonax alnorum) and Willow Flycatcher (Empidonax traillii) are innate. Auk 101, 13-24. Lacher, T., 2004. Tropical Ecology, Assessment, and Monitoring (TEAM) Initiative: Avian Monitoring Protocol version 3. Conservation International, Washington, DC. Menendez-Guerrero P.A., Ron S.R. and Graham C.H., 2006. Predicting the Distribution and Spread of Pathogens to Amphibians. Amphibian Conservation 11:127-128. Ridgely, R.S., Greenfield, P.J., 2001. The birds of Ecuador. Volume I. Status, Distribution, and Taxonomy. Cornell University Press, New York. Sutherland, W.J., 1996. Ecological census techniques: a handbook. University press, Cambridge. Weldon, C., du Preez, L.H., Hyatt, A.D., Muller, R., Speare, R., 2004. Origin of the amphibian chytrid fungus. Emerging Infectious Diseases. 10 (Issue 12). 38


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. 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. Volume 10a. Familia:



Avifuanal References

Mist Netting Barlow, Luiz A.M. Mestre, Toby A. Gardner, Carlos A. Peres (2006) The value of primary, secondary and plantation forests for Amazonian birds Biological Conservation 136(2): 21223 Blake and Loiselle (2000) Diversity of birds along an elevational gradient in the Cordillera Central, Costa Rica The Auk (3)663-686 Blake and Loiselle (2001) Bird assemblages in second and old growth forests costa rica, persepectives from mist nets and point counts The Auk 118(2): 304-326 Blake and Loiselle (2009) Species Composition of Neotropical Understory Bird Communities: Local Versus Regional Perspectives Based on Capture Data Biotropica 41( 1): 85-94 Brooks, T.M. et al. (2002) Habitat loss and extinction in the hotspots of biodiversity. Conserv. Biol. 16, 909–923 Dunn, R.R. (2004) Recovery of faunal communities during tropical forest regeneration. Conservation. Biology. 18, 302–309 Faria D., Mateus Luı´s Barradas Paciencia, Marianna Dixo, Rudi Ricardo Laps, Julio Baumgarten, (2007) Ferns, frogs, lizards, birds and bats in forest fragments and shade cacao plantations in two contrasting landscapes in the Atlantic forest, Brazil Biodiversity Conservation 16:2335–2357 Gardner, Jos Barlow, Luke W. Parry, and Carlos A. Peres (2007) Predicting the Uncertain Future of Tropical Forest Species in a Data Vacuum BIOTROPICA 39(1): 25–30 Hawes J., Jos Barlow, Toby A. Gardner, Carlos A. Peres (2008) The value of forest strips for understorey birds in an Amazonian plantation landscape Biological Conservation 141(9): 2262-2278 Loiselle and Blake (1992) Population Variation in a Tropical Bird Community BioScience 42 (11): 838-845 Wright S. J. (2005) Tropical forests in a changing Environment TRENDS in Ecology and Evolution 20(10) 553-560


Wright and Muller-Landau (2006) The Future of Tropical Forest Species Biotropica 38(3): 287–301 Point Counts Alldredge, M., W., Simons, T., R., Pollock, K., H., Factors Affecting Aural Detections of Songbirds Ecological Applications, 17:3 (Apr., 2007), pp. 948-955 Barlow J., Mestre, L., Gardner, T., A., Peres, C., A., 2007 The value of primary, secondary and plantation forests for Amazonian birds Biological Conservation, Biological Conservation 136:2 pp 212-231 BirdLife International 2000 Threatened birds of the world. Lynx Edicions/BirdLife International. Blake, J., G., and Loiselle, B., A., 2001 Bird Assemblages in Old-growth and Second-growth Forests, Costa Rica: Perspectives From Mist-nets and Point Counts The Auk 118(2):304-326 Colwell, R., K., Mao, C., X., Chang, J., Interpolating, Extrapolating and Comparing Incidencebased Species Accumulation Curves Ecology, 85(10), 2004, pp. 2717–2727 Edwards , D., P., Hodgson, J., Hamer, K.,C, , Mitchell, S., L., Ahmad A., H., Cornell S., J., Wilcove D., S., 2010 Wildlife-friendly oil palm plantations fail to protect biodiversity effectively Conservation Letters March 2010 Farnsworth, G., L., Pollock, K., Nichols J., D., Simons T., R., Hine J., E., Sauer J., R., A Removal Model For Estimating Detection Probabilities The Auk 119(2):414–425, 2002 Flather C., H., Fitting Species-Accumulation Functions and Assessing Regional Land Use Impacts on Avian Diversity Journal of Biogeography, 23:2 (Mar., 1996), pp. 155-168 Garson, J., Aggarwal A., and Sahotra S., Birds as surrogates for biodiversity: An analysis of a data set from southern Québec Journal of Biosciences 27:4 Gaston, K., J., Blackburn T., M., Goldewijk, K., K., 2003 Habitat conversion and global avian biodiversity loss, Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 2003 270, 1293-1300 Grossman, E., Blake, R., and Kim C. 2004 Learning to See Biological Motion: Brain Activity Parallels Behavior Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 16:9, pp 1669–1679 Hannaford, M., J., Barbour, M., T., Resh, V., H., 1997 Training reduces observer variability in visual-based assessments of stream habitat Journal of the North American Benthological 41

Society 16: 853-860. Dec 1997. Johnson, D. H. 1995. Point counts of birds: What are we estimating? Pages 117–123 in Monitoring bird populations by point counts (C. J. Ralph, J. R. Sauer, and S. Droege, Eds.). United States Forest Service General Technical Report PSW-GTRK., J., Blackburn T., M., and Goldewijk K., K., 2003 Habitat conversion and global avian biodiversity loss Proceedings Of The Royal Society 270: 1521 1293-1300 Lawton, J., H., Bignell, D., E., Bolton, B., Bleomers G., F., Egleton P., Hammon P., N., Hodda M. Holt R., Larsen, T., B., Mawdsley N., A., Stork N., E., Srivastava D., S.,Watt, A.,D., Biodiversity inventory, indicator taxa and effects of habitat modification in tropical forest Nature 931: Jan 1999 Lees A., C., Peres C., A., Rapid avifaunal collapse along the Amazonian deforestation frontier Biological Conservation 133 ( 2006 ) 198 –211 Lees, A., C., and Peres C., A., Gap-crossing movements predict species occupancy in Amazonian forest fragment, Oikos, 118: 2, (2009) , pp. 280-290(11) Miller J., M., Dixon M., M., Turner M., G.,Response of Avian Communities in Large-River Floodplains to Environmental Variation at Multiple Scales Ecological Applications, 14: 5 (Oct., 2004), pp. 1394-1410 Moore, J., E., Scheiman D., M., Swihart R., K., Field Comparison Of Removal And Modified Double-observer Modelling For Estimating Delectability and Abundance Of Birds The Auk; Jul 2004; 121, 3 Nichols J., D., Hines, J., E., Sauer J., R., Frederick W., Fallon, J., E., Heglund, P., J., 2000 A Double-observer Approach For Estimating Detection Probability And Abundance From Point Counts. The Auk 117(2):393–408, 2000 Rodrigues A., S., L., and Brooks T., M., Shortcuts for Biodiversity Conservation Planning: The Effectiveness of Surrogates Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics Vol. 38: 713-737 Rosenstock, S., S., Anderson D., R. Giesen K., M., Luekerin, T., Carter M., F., Landbird Counting Techniques: Current Practices an Alternative The Auk 119(1):46–53, 2002


Royle J., A., Nichols J., D., Abundance From Repeated Presence-Absence Data Or Point Counts Ecology, 84(3), 2003, pp. 777–790 2003 by the Ecological Society of America Sala O., E., Chapin F., S., et al., 2000 Global Biodiversity Scenarios for the Year 2100 Science 287, 1770 (2000) Scholes R., J., & Biggs, R., 2005 A biodiversity intactness index Nature 434: March 2005 Shiu H., and Lee P., Assessing Avian Point-count Duration and Sample Size Using Species Accumulation Functions Zoological Studies 42(2): 357-367 (2003) Simons, T., R., Alldredge M., W., Pollock K., H., Wettroth J., M., Experimental Analysis Of The Audio Detection Process On Avian Point Counts The Auk 124(3):986-999. 2007 Sodhi, N., S., Liow, L., H., and Bazzaz F., A., Avian Extinctions from Tropical and Sub-tropical Forest Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics 38: 713-737 Schlesinger, W., H., Simberloff, D., Swackhamer, D., 2001 Forecasting Agriculturally Driven Global Environmental Change Science 292: 5515, pp. 281 - 284 Vassiliki , K., Devillers, P., Dufrene, M., Legakis, A., Vokou D., Lebrun, P., 2004 Testing the Value of Six Taxanomic Groups as Biodiversity At A Local Scale Cons. Bio.18:3 (July 2004) pp 667 – 675 Wilson E., O., Peter., F., M., Smithsonian Institution 1998 Year Out Group, 2010 2010. 9.4 Amphibian References Biodiversity Vol. 1 National Academy of Sciences (U.S.),

J. Barlow, T. A. Gardner, I. S. Araujo, T. C. Avila-Pires, A. B. Bonaldo, J. E. Costa, M. C. Esposito, L. V. Ferreira, J. Hawes, M. I. M. Hernandez, M. S. Hoogmoed, R. N. Leite, N. F. Lo-Man-Hung, J. R. Malcolm, M. B. Martins, L. A. M. Mestre, R. Miranda-Santos, A. L. Nunes-Gutjahr, W. L. Overal, L. Parry, S. L. Peters, M. A. Ribeiro-Junior, M. N. F. da Silva, C. da Silva Motta, and C. A. Peres (2007) Quantifying the biodiversity value of tropical primary, secondary, and plantation forests PNAS vol. 104 no. 47 18555–18560 Beebee, T.J.C., Griffiths, R.A., (2005). The amphibian decline crisis: A watershed for conservation biology? Biological Conservation 125, 271–285. 43

K. E. Bell and M. A. Donnelly (2006) Influence of Forest Fragmentation on Community Structure of Frogs and Lizards in Northeastern Costa Rica Conservation Biology Volume 20, No. 6, 1750–1760 Bridges, C.M., Semlitsch, R.D., (2000). Variation in pesticide tolerance of tadpoles among and within species of Ranidae and patterns of amphibian decline. Conservation Biology 14, 1490–1499. Broomhall, S.D., Osborne, W.S., Cunningham, R.B. (2000). Comparative effects of ambient ultraviolet-B radiation on two sympatric species of Australian frogs. Conservation Biology 14, 420–427. Samuel A. Cushman (2006) Effects of habitat loss and fragmentation on amphibians: A review and prospectus Biological Conservation 128; 231 –240 Donnelly, M. A., M. H. Chen, and G. C.Watkins. (2005) Sampling amphibians and reptiles in the Iwokrama Forest ecosystem. Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia 154:55–69. Toby A. Gardner*, Jos Barlow, Carlos A. Peres (2007a) Paradox, presumption and pitfalls in conservation biology: The importance of habitat change for amphibians and reptiles Biological Conservation 138; 166–179 T. A. Gardner, M.A.Ribeiro-Junior, J. Barlow, T. S. Avila-Pires, M.S. Hoogmeod and C. A. Peres (2007b) The Value of Primary, Secondary, and Plantation Forests for a Neotropical Herpetofauna Conservation Biology Vol 21, 3; 775–787 T. A. Gardner, J. Barlow, L. W. Parry, and C. A. Peres (2007c) Predicting the Uncertain Future of Tropical Forest Species in a Data Vacuum BIOTROPICA 39(1): 25–30 2007 Gibbons, J. W., Scott, D. E., Ryan, T. J., Buhlmann, K. A., Tuberville, T. D., Metts, B. S., Greene, J. L., Mills, T., Leiden, Y., Poppy, S. and C. T. Winne. 2000. The global decline of reptiles, deja-vu amphibians. Bioscience 50: 653–667. S.V. Krishnamurthy (2003) Amphibian assemblages in undisturbed and disturbed areas of Kudremukh National Park, central Western Ghats, India Environmental Conservation 30 (3): 274–282 P. B. Pearman (1997) Correlates of Amphibian Diversity in an Altered Landscape of Amazonian Ecuador Conservation Biology, Volume 11, No. 5 Pages 1211–1225 44

R. Pardini, D. Faria, G. M. Accacio, R. R. Laps, E. Mariano-Neto, M. L.B. Paciencia, M. Dixo, Julio Baumgarten (2009) The challenge of maintaining Atlantic forest biodiversity: A multitaxa conservation assessment of specialist and generalist species in an agro-forestry mosaic in southern Bahia Biological Conservation 142; 1170-1182 M. Rödel & R. Ernst (2004) MEASURING AND MONITORING AMPHIBIAN DIVERSITY IN TROPICAL FORESTS. I. AN EVALUATION OF METHODS WITH RECOMMENDATIONS FOR STANDARDIZATION Ecotropica 10: 1–14, Sala, O.E., Chapin, F.S.I., Armesto, J.J., Berlow, E., Bloomfield, J., Dirzo, R., HuberSanwald, E., Huenneke, L.F., Jackson, R.B., Kinzig, A., Leemans, R., Lodge, D.M., Mooney, H.A., Oesterheld, M., Poff, N.L., Sykes, M.T., Walker, B.H., Walker, M., Wall, D.H., (2000). Global biodiversity scenarios for the year 2100. Science 287, 1770–1774. Stuart, S.N., Chanson, J.S., Cox, N.A., Young, B.E., Rodrigues, A.S.L., Fischman, D.L. and Waller, R.W. (2004). Status and trends of amphibians declines and extinctions worldwide. Science 306: 1783-1786. J. N. Urbina-Cardona, M. Olivares-Pe´rez, V. H. Reynoso (2006) Herpetofauna diversity and microenvironment correlates across a pasture–edge–interior ecotone in tropical rainforest fragments in the Los Tuxtlas Biosphere Reserve of Veracruz, Mexico Biological Conservation 132; 61–75 J. N. Urbina-Cardona (2008) Conservation of Neotropical Herpetofauna: Research Trends and Challenges Tropical Conservation Science Vol.1(4):359-375 Wright SJ (2005) Tropical forests in a changing environment Trends Ecol Evol 20:553–560. Whitfield SM, Pierce MSF (2005) Tree buttress microhabitat use by a neotropical leaf-litter herpetofauna. Journal of Herpetology 39:192-198. Whitfield SM, Bell KE, Philippi T, Sasa M, Bolanos F, Chaves G, Savage JM, DonnellyMA (2007) Amphibian and reptile declines over 35 years at La Selva, Costa Rica Proc Natl Acad Sci 104:8352–8356. Young, B.E., Stuart, S.N., Chanson, J.S., Cox, N.A., Boucher, T.M., 2004. Disappearing Jewels: The Status of New World Amphibians. Natureserve, Arlington, VA.



Butterfly References

Bennett, A. F., 1991. Roads, roadsides and wildlife conservation: A review. In: Saunders, D. A., Hobbs, R. J. (eds.). Nature Conservation 2: The role of corridors. Chipping Norton, NSW, Australia: Surrey Beatty pp. 99-118. Cottam, G., Curtis, J.T., 1956. The use of distance measures in phytosociological sampling. Ecology 37: 451-460. DeVries, P. J., Walla, T. R., 1999. Species diversity in spatial and temporal dimensions of fruit-feeding butterflies from two Ecuadorian rainforests. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 68: 333-353. Ehrlich, P. R., Raven, P. H., 1965. Butterflies and plants: A study in co-evolution. Evolution 18: 586-608. Ramos, A. F., 2000. Nymphalid butterfly communities in an Amazonian forest fragment. Journal of Research on the Lepidoptera 35:29-41. Sparrow, H. R., Sisk, T. D., Ehrlich, P. R., Murphy, D. D., 1994. Techniques and guidelines for monitoring neotropical butterflies. Conservation Biology. 8: 800-809. 9.6 Benthic References

Azrina, M.Z., Yap, C.K., Ismail, A.R., Ismail, A. and Tan, S.G. (2006). Anthropogenic impacts on the distribution and biodiversity of benthic macroinvertebrates and water quality of the Langat River, Peninsular Malaysia, Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety, 64, 337-347 Cao, Y., Bark, A.W. and Williams, P.(1997). Analysing benthic macroinvertebrate community changes along a pollution gradient: A framework for the development of biotic indices, Wat. Res., 31, 884-892 Carrera, C. and Fierro (2001). Guia de identification de los macroinvertebrates acuaticos mas comunes del tropico americano, Ecociencia, Quito, Ecuador Contreras, J., Roldan, G., Arango, A. and Alvarez, L.F. (2008). `Evalucion de la calidad del agua de las microcuencas La Laucha, La Lejia y La Rastrojera, utilizando los macroinvertebrados como bioindicadores, Municipio de Durania, Depertamento Norte de Santander, Colombia’, Rev. Acad. Colomb. Cienc., 32, 171-193 Czerniawska-Kusza, I. (2005). Comparing modified biological monitoring working party score system and several biological indices based on macroinvertebrates for water quality assessment, Limnologica, 35, 169-176 46

Escolar, J., Mercer, A. and Urpeth, H. (2009). Assessment of Global Vision International’s impact on water quality in the Bosque Protector Yachana- Preliminary report, GVI Amazon, Ecuador Solder, M., Stephen, I., Ramos, L., Angus, N., Wells, C., Grosso, A. and Crane, M. (2004). Relationship between macroinvertebrate fauna and environmental variables in small streams of the Dominican Republic, Water Research, 38, 863-874 Stein, H., Springer, M. and Kohlmann, B. (2008) Comparison of two sampling methods for biomonitoring using macroinvertebrates in the Dos Novillos River, Costa Rica, Ecological Engineering, 34, 267-275 Zamora-Munoz, C., Sainz-Cantero, C.E., Sanchez-Ortega, A. and Albina-Tercedor, J., (1995). Are biological indices BMWP and ASPT and their significance regarding water quality seasonally dependent? Factors explaining their variations, Wat.Res., 29, 285-290


10 Appendices
10.1 GVI Species List

Accipiter superscilious Spizaetus ornatus Buteo magnirostris

Tiny Hawk** Ornate Hawk-eagle Roadside Hawk Variable Hawk Swallow-tailed Kite Double-toothed Kite Plumbeous Kite Gray-headed Kite Black-faced Hawk White Hawk Osprey

June 2010
Buteo polyosoma

** New additions to the Yachana
Elanoides forficatus

Species List in Phase 102
Harpagus bidentatus Ictinia plumbea

Class Aves
Leptodon cayanensis Class Aves Leucopternis melanops Tinamiformes Leucopternis albicollis Tinamidae Crypturellus bartletti Crypturellus cinereus Crypturellus soui Crypturellus undulatus Crypturellus variegatus Tinamus major Tinamous Pandion haliaetus Bartlett's Tinamou Cinereous Tinamou Falconidae Little Tinamou Daptrius ater Undulated Tinamou Falco rufigularis Variegated Tinamou Ibycter americanus Great Tinamou Herpetotheres cachinnans Micrastur gilvicollis Ciconiformes Micrastur semitorquatus Ardeidae Ardea cocoi Bubulcus ibis Butorides striatus Egretta caerulea Egretta thula Tigrisoma lineatum Herons, Bitterns and Egrets Milvago chimachima Cocoi Heron Cattle Egret Galliformes Striated Heron Cracidae Little Blue Heron Nothocrax urumutum Snowy Egret Ortalis guttata Rufescent Tiger-Heron Penelope jacquacu Spix's Guan Speckled Chachalaca Nocturnal Curassow Curassows, Chachalacas Guans, and Yellow-headed Caracara Collared Forest-Falcon Laughing Falcon Lined Forest-Falcon Red-throated Caracara Bat Falcon Black Caracara Falcons and Caracaras

Cathartidae Cathartes aura Cathartes melambrotus Coragyps atractus Sarcoramphus papa

American Vultures Odontophoridae Turkey Vulture Odontophorus gujanensis Greater Yellow-headed Vulture Black Vulture Charadriiformes King Vulture Scolopacidae Actitis macularia Sandpipers, Phalaropes Snipes and Marbled Wood-Quail New World Quails

Spotted Sandpiper Solitary Sandpiper

Falconiformes Tringa solitaria Accipitridae Kites, Eagles, Hawks etc


Recurvirostridae Hoploxypterus cayanus

Plovers and Lapwings Pied Plover Opisthocomidae Opisthocomus hoazin Hoatzin Hoatzin

Gruiformes Rallidae Anurolimnatus castaneiceps Aramides cajanea Rails, Gallinules, and Coots Chestnut-headed Crake Gray-necked Wood-Rail Strigiformes Strigidae Glaucidium brasilianum Lophostrix cristata Columbiformes Columbidae Claravis pretiosa Columba plumbea Geotrygon montana Leptotila rufaxilla Pigeons and Doves Blue Ground-Dove Plumbeous Pigeon Ruddy Quail-Dove Gray-fronted Dove Caprimulgiformes Nyctibiidae Nyctibius aethereus Psittaciformes Psittacidae Amazona farinosa Amazona ochrocephala Ara severa Parrots and Macaws Mealy Amazon Yellow-crowned Amazon Chestnut-fronted Macaw Caprimulgidae Nyctidromus albicollis Nyctiphrynus ocellatus Psittacidae Cont. Aratinga leucophthalmus Aratinga weddellii Pionites melanocephala Pionopsitta barrabandi Pionus menstruus Pyrrhura melanura Parrots and Macaws White-eyed Parakeet Dusky-headed Parakeet Black-headed Parrot Orange-cheeked Parrot Blue-headed Parrot Maroon-tailed Parakeet Trochilidae Heliothryx aurita Cuculiformes Cuculidae Crotophaga ani Crotophaga major Piaya cayana Piaya melanogaster Cuckoos and Anis Smooth-billed Ani Greater Ani Squirrel Cockoo Black-bellied Cuckoo Amazilia franciae cyanocollis Amazilia fimbriata Anthracothorax nigricollis Campylopterus largipennis Eutoxeres condamini Glaucis hirsuta Hummingbirds Black-eared Fairy Andean Emerald Hummingbird Glittering-throated Emerald Black-throated Mango Grey-breasted Sabrewing Buff-tailed Sicklebill Rufous -breasted Hermit Apodiformes Apodidae Chaetura cinereiventris Streptoprocne zonaris Swifts Grey-rumped Swift White-collared Swift Nightjars and Nighthawks Pauraque Ocellated Poorwill Nyctibius grandis Nyctibius griseus Potoos Long-tailed Potoo Great Potoo Common Potoo Otus choliba Otus watsonii Pulsatrix perspicillata Typical Owls Ferruginous Pygmy-Owl Crested owl Tropical Screech-Owl Tawny-bellied Screech-owl Spectacled owl


Thrrenetes niger Phaethornis bourcieri Phaethornis hispidus Phaethornis malaris Thalurania furcata Floriduga mellivora Heliodoxa aurescens

Pale-tailed Barbthroat** Straight-billed Hermit White-bearded Hermit Great-billed Hermit Fork-tailed Woodnymph White-necked Jacobin** Gould's Jewelfront
Picidae Woodpeckers and Piculets Crimson-crested Woodpecker

Campephilus melanoleucos Campephilus rubricollis Celeus elegans Celeus flavus Celeus grammicus Chrysoptilus punctigula

Red-necked Woodpecker Chestnut Woodpecker
Cream-coloured Woodpecker Scale-breasted Woodpecker

Spot-breasted Woodpecker Lineated Woodpecker Yellow-tufted Woodpecker Lafresnaye's piculet Little Woodpecker

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

Dryocopus lineatus Melanerpes cruentatus Picumnus lafresnayi Veniliornis passerinus

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

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

Dendrocolaptidae Dendrocolaptes picumnus Dendrexetastes rufigula Dendrocincla fuliginosa

Woodcreepers Black-banded Woodcreeper**
Cinnamon-throated Woodcreeper

Plain Brown Woodcreeper

Glyphorynchus spirurus Lepidocolaptes albolineatus Xiphorhynchus guttatus Xiphorhynchus ocellatus Xiphorhynchus picus

Wedge-billed Woodcreeper Lineated Woodcreeper Buff-throated Woodcreeper Ocellated Woodcreeper Straight-billed Woodcreeper

Capitonidae Capita aurovirens Capita auratus Eubucco bourcierii

New World Barbets Scarlet-crowned Barbet Gilded Barbet Lemon-throated Barbet Furnariidae Ancistrops strigilatus Phylidor erythropterum Automolus rubiginosus Philydor pyrrhodes Ovenbirds Chestnut-winged Hookbill
Chestnut-winged Foligae-gleaner**

Ruddy Foliage-gleaner
Cinammon-rumped Foliage-gleaner

Ramphastidae Pteroglossus azara Pteroglossus castanotis Pteroglossus inscriptus Pteroglossus pluricinctus Ramphastos vitellinus Ramphastos tucanus Selenidera reinwardtii

Toucans Ivory-billed Aracari Chestnut-eared Aracari Lettered Aracari Many-banded Aracari Channel-billed Toucan White-throated Toucan Golden-collared Toucanet

Xenops minutus Scelerurus caudacutus Scelerurus mexicanus Scelerurus rufigularis Trogoniformes Trogonidae Pharomachrus pavoninus Trogon melanurus Trogon viridis Trogon collaris

Plain Xenops** Black-tailed Leaftosser Tawny-throated Leaftosser** Short-billed Leaftosser**

Trogons and Quetzals Pavonine Quetzal Black-tailed Trogon
Amazonian White-tailed Trogon

Collared Trogon


Attila spadiceus Trogon rufus Trogon violaceus Trogon curucui Black-throated Trogon
Amazonian Violaceous Trogon

Bright-rumped Attila Long-tailed Tyrant Lemon-browed Flycatcher Yellow-throated Flycatcher Eastern Wood-Pewee White-eyed Tody-tyrant Piratic Flycatcher Crowned Slaty Flycatcher** Sepia-capped Flycatcher Screaming Piha Boat-billed Flycatcher Ochre-bellied Flycatcher Short-crested Flycatcher Dusky-capped Flycatcher Whiskered Flycatcher Sulphur-bellied Flycatcher Streaked Flycatcher Gray-capped Flycatcher Dusky-chested Flycatcher Social Flycatcher Drab Water-Tyrant Black-capped Becard White-winged Becard** Great Kiskadee Olivaceous Flatbill Grayish Mouner Black-crowned Tityra Masked Tityra Black-tailed Tityra Ruddy-tailed Flycatcher
Yellow-browed Tody-Flycatcher

Colonia colonus Conopias cinchoneti Conopias parva

Blue-crowned Trogon

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

Contopus virens Hemitriccus zosterops Legatus leucophaius Griseotyrannus aurantioatrocristatus Leptopogon amaurocephalus Lipaugus vociferans Megarynchus piangu

Ringed Kingfisher

Momotidae Baryphthengus martii Electron platyrhynchum Momotus momota

Motmots Rufous Motmot Broad-billed Motmot Blue-crowned Motmot

Mionectes oleagineus Myiarchus ferox Myiarchus tuberculifer Myiobius barbatus Myiodynastes luteiventris

Cotingidae Cotinga cayana Cotinga maynana Gynnoderus foetidus Iodopleura isabellae Querula purpurata

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

Myiodynastes maculatus Myiozetetes granadensis Myiozetetes luteiventris Myiozetetes similis Ochthornis littoralis Pachyramphus marginatus Pachyramphus viridis

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

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

Pitangus sulphuratus Rhynchocyclus olivaceus Rhytipterna simplex Tityra inquisitor Tityra semifasciata Tityra cayana Terenotriccus erythrurus Todirostrum chrysocrotaphum Tolmomyias poliocephalus Tolmomyias viridiceps

Gray-crowned Flatbill Olive-faced Flatbill Yellow-crowned Tyrannulet Tropical Kingbird

Tyrannidae Platyrinchus coronatus

Tyrant Flycatchers Golden-crowned Spadebill**

Tyrannulus elatus Tyrannus melancholicus


Tyrannus savana Tyrannus tyrannus Zimmerius gracilipes

Fork-tailed Flycatcher Eastern Kingbird Slender-footed Tyrannulet Crows, Jays, and Magpies

Dendroica fusca Dendroica striata

Blackburnian Warbler Blackpoll Warbler

Thraupidae Chlorophanes spiza Cissopis leveriana

Tanagers Green Honeycreeper Magpie Tanager Purple Honeycreeper Yellow-bellied Dacnis Black-faced Dacnis** Thick-billed Euphonia Rufous-bellied Euphonia Orange-bellied Euphonia White-lored Euphonia White-vented Euphonia** Red-crowned Ant-Tanager Yellow-backed Tanager Scarlet Tanager Summer Tanager Silver-beaked Tanager Masked Crimson Tanager Flame-crested Tanager Fulvous-crested Tanager Fulvous Shrike-tanager Opal-crowned Tanager Paradise Tanager Masked Tanager** Turquoise Tanager Green-and-gold Tanager Yellow-bellied Tanager Swallow Tanager Blue-gray Tanager Palm Tanager

Corvidae Cyanocorax violaceus

Violaceous Jay Cyanerpes caeruleus Dacnis flaviventer

Vireonidae Vireo olivaceus

Vireos Dacnis lineata Red-eyed Vireo Euphonia laniirostris Euphonia rufiventris

Turdidae Catharus ustulatus Turdus albicollis Turdus lawrencii

Thrushes Euponia xanthogaster Swainson's Thrush Euphonia chrysopasta White-necked Thrush Euphonia minuta Lawrence's Thrush Habia rubica Hemithraupis flavicollis

Hirundinidae Atticora fasciata Stelgidopteryx ruficollis Neochelidon tibialis Tachycineta albiventer

Swallows and Martins Piranaga olivacea
White-banded Swallow

Piranaga rubra
Southern rough-winged swallow

Ramphocelus carbo
White-thighed Swallow**

Ramphocelus nigrogularis White-winged Swallow Tachyphonus cristatus Tachyphonus surinamus Troglodytidae Campylorhynchus turdinus Donacobius atricapillus Henicorhina leucosticta Microcerculus marginatus Thryothorus coraya Wrens Lanio fulvus Thrush-like Wren Tangara callophrys Black-capped Donacobius Tangara chilensis White-breasted Wood-wren Tangara nigrocinta Southern Nightingale-Wren Tangara mexicana Coraya Wren Tangara schrankii Tangara xanthogastra Polioptilidae Microbates cinereiventris
Gnatcatchers and Gnatwrens

Tersina viridis Tawny-faced Gnatwren Thraupis episcopus Thraupis palmarum Parulidae Wilsonia canadensis Dendroica aestiva Basileuterus fulvicauda New World Warblers Canada Warbler** Thamnophilidae Yellow Warbler Cercomacra cinerascens Buff-rumped Warbler Chamaeza nobilis

Typical Antbirds Gray Antbird Striated Antthrush


Dichrozona cincta Formicarius analis Frederickena unduligera Hersilochmus dugandi Hylophlax naevia Hylophylax poecilinota Hypocnemis cantator Gymnopithys leucapis Hypocnemis hypoxantha Megastictus margaritatus Myrmeciza hyperythra Myrmeciza immaculata Myrmeciza melanoceps Myrmornis torquata Myrmothera campanisona Myrmotherula axillaris Myrmotherula hauxwelli Myrmotherula longipennis Myrmotherula obscura Myrmotherula ornata Mymotherula brahyrura Phlegopsis erythroptera Phlegopsis nigromaculata Pithys albifrons Schistocichla leucostigma Thamnomanes ardesiacus Thamnophilus murinus Thamnophilus schistaceus

Banded Antbird Black-faced Antthrush Undulated Antshrike Dugand's Antwren Icteridae Spot-backed Antbird Scale-backed Antbird Warbling Antbird Bicoloured Antibird** Yellow-browed Antbird Psarocolius angustifrons Pearly Antshrike Plumbeous Antbird Sooty Antbird White-shouldered Antbird Wing-banded Antbird Thrush-like Antpitta White-flanked Antwren Plain-throated Antwren Long-winged Antwren Short-billed Antwren Ornate Antwren Pygmy Antwren** Reddish-winged Bare-eye Black-spotted Bare-eye White-plumbed Antbird Spot-winged Antbird Dusky-throated Antshrike Mouse-colored Antshrike Plain-winged Antshrike Saltators, Grosbeaks etc Blue-black Grosbeak Slate-colored Grosbeak Buff-throated Saltator Carollia brevicauda Chiroptera Carollinae Short-tailed Fruit bats Dasypodidae Cabassous unicinctus Dasypus novemcinctus Armadillos Southern naked-tailed armadillo Nine-banded armadillo Xenarthra Megalonychidae Subfamily Choloepinae Choloepus diadactylus Two-toed sloths Southern two-toed sloth Psarocolius decumanas Psarocolius viridis Russet-backed Oropendola Crested Oropendola Green Oropendola Cacicus cela Cacicus solitaries Clypicterus oseryi Gymnomystax mexicanus Icterus croconotus Molothrus oryzivorous Fringillidae Carduelis psaltria Cardueline Finches Lesser Goldfinch American Blackbirds Orioles, and

Yellow-rumped Cacique Solitary Cacique Casqued Oropendola Oriole Blackbird Orange-backed Troupial Giant Cowbird

Class Mammalia
Marsupialia Didelphidae Caluromys lanatus Chironectes minimus Didelphis marsupialis Marmosa lepida Micoureus demerarae Philander sp. Opossums Western woolly opposum Water opossum Common opossum Little rufous mouse opossum Long-furred opossum woolly mouse

Four-eyed opossum

Cardinalidae Cyanocompsa cyanoides Saltator grossus Saltator maximus

Emberizidae Ammodramus aurifrons Oryzoborus angloensis

Emberizine Finches Yellow-browed Sparrow Lesser Seed-Finch

Carollia castanea Carollia perspicullatus Rhinophylla pumilio Short-tailed fruit bat Little fruit bat


Mustelidae Eira barbara Desmodontinae Desmodus rotundus Vampire bats Common vampire bat Felidae Herpailurus yaguarundi Emballonuridae Saccopteryx bilineata Sac-winged/Sheath-tailed Bats White-lined bat Leopardus pardalis Puma concolor Lontra longicaudis

Weasel Tayra Neotropical otter

Cat Jaguarundi Ocelot Puma

Glossophaginae Glossophaga soricina Lonchophylla robusta

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

Stenodermatidae Artibeus jamaicensis Artibeus lituratus Artibeus obscurus Artibeus planirostus Chiroderma villosum Sturrnia lilium Sturnria oporaphilum Uroderma pilobatum Vampyrodes caraccioli

Neotropical Fruit bats Rodentia Large fruit-eating bat Echimyidae Large fruit bat Dactylomys dactylinus Large fruit bat Nectomys squamipes Large fruit bat Proechimys semispinosus Big-eyed bat Hairy-legged bat Sciuridae Yellow shouldered fruit bat Sciurus sp. Tent-making bat Sciurillus pusillus Great Stripe-faced bat Large Cavylike Rodents Neotropical pygmy squirrel Amazon red squirrel Squirrels Spiny rat Water rat Amazon bamboo rat Rodents

Phyllostominae Macrophyllum macrophyllum Mimon crenulatum Phyllostomus hastatus

Spear-nosed Bats Agouti paca Long-legged bat Coendou bicolor Hairy-nosed bat Dasyprocta fuliginosa Spear-nosed bat Hydrochaeirs hydrochaeirs Myoprocta pratti Capybara Green acouchy Black agouti Bi-color spined porcupine Paca

Vespertilionidae Myotis nigricans

Vespertilionid Bats Little brown bat

Class Sauropsida
Lizards Gekkonidae

Primates Callitrichidae Saguinus nigricollis


Black-mantle tamarin

Gonatodes concinnatus Gonatodes humeralis

Collared forest gecko Bridled forest gecko Amazon pygmy gecko

Cebidae Allouatta seniculus Aotus sp. Cebus albifrons Red howler monkey Night monkey White-fronted capuchin

Pseudogonatodes guianensis

Gymnophthalmidae Alopoglossus striventris Arthrosaura reticulata reticulata Black-bellied forest lizard Reticulated creek lizard

Carnivora Procyonidae Nasua nasua Potos flavus

Carnivores Raccoon South american coati Kinkajou

Cercosaurra argulus Cercosaura ocellata Leposoma parietale Neusticurus ecpleopus Prionodactylus argulus Common forest lizard Common streamside lizard Elegant-eyed lizard


Prionodactylus oshaughnessyi

White-striped eyed lizard

Oxyrhopus formosus Oxyrhopus melanogenys

Yellow-headed calico snake Black-headed calico snake Banded calico snake Common bird snake Giant bird snake Red-vine snake Tiger rat snake melanocephala Black-headed snake Common false viper Giant false viper Green-striped vine snake

Iguanas Hoplocercidae Enyalioides laticeps Amazon forest dragon

Oxyrhopus petola digitalus Pseustes poecilonotus polylepis Pseustes sulphureus Sphlophus compressus

Polychrotidae Anolis fuscoauratus Anolis nitens scypheus Anolis ortonii Anolis punctata Anolis trachyderma Slender anole Yellow-tongued forest anole Amazon bark anole Amazon green anole Common forest anole

Spilotes pullatus Tantilla melanocephala

Xenedon rabdocephalus Xenedon severos Xenoxybelis argenteus

Viperidae Scincidae Mabuya nigropunctata Black-spotted skink Bothriopsis taeniata Bothriopsis bilineata bilineata Bothrops atrox Tropiduridae Tropidurus (Plica) plica Tropidurus (plica) umbra ochrocollaris Collared tree runner Olive tree runner Boidae Teiidae Kentropyx pelviceps Tupinambis teguixin Forest whiptail Golden tegu Boa constrictor constrictor Boa constrictor imperator Corallus enydris enydris Epicrates cenchria gaigei Snakes Colubridae Atractus elaps Atractus major Atractus occiptoalbus Chironius fuscus Chironius scurruls Clelia clelia clelia Dendriphidion dendrophis Dipsas catesbyi Dipsas indica Drepanoides anomalus Drymoluber dichrous Helicops angulatus Helicops leopardinus Imantodes cenchoa Imantodes lentiferus Leptodeira annulata annulata Leptophis cupreus Liophis miliaris chrysostomus Liophis reginae Earth snake sp3 Earth snake Earth snake sp2 Olive whipsnake Rusty whipsnake Musarana Tawny forest racer Ornate snail-eating snake Big-headed snail-eating snake Amazon egg-eating snake Crocodilians Alligatoridae Paleosuchus trigonatus Smooth-fronted caiman Elapidae Micurus hemprichii ortonii Micrurus langsdorfii Micrurus lemniscatus Micrurus spixii spixxi Micurus surinamensis surinamensis Orange-ringed coral snake Langsdorffs coral snake Eastern ribbon coral snake Central amazon coral snake Aquatic coral snake Red-tailed boa Common boa constrictor Amazon tree boa Peruvian rainbow boa Bothrops hyoprora Lachesis muta muta Speckeled forest pit viper Western Striped Forest Pit Viper Fer-de-lance Amazonian Lancehead Amazon Bushmaster Hog-Nosed

Common glossy racer Banded south american water snake Caecilians Spotted water snake

Class Amphibia


Common blunt-headed tree snake Caecilia aff. tentaculata Amazon blunt-headed tree snake Common cat-eyed snake Brown parrot snake White-lipped swamp snake Common swamp snake Bufonidae Toads Plethodontidae Bolitoglossa peruviana Lungless Salamanders Dwarf climbing salamander


Rhinella marina Rhinella complex margaritifer Rhinella dapsilis

Cane Toad Crested Forest Toad Sharp-nosed Toad

Phyllomedusa tarsius Phyllomedusa tomopterna Phyllomedusa vaillanti Scinax garbei

Warty Monkey Frog Barred Monkey Frog White-lined monkey Tree Frog Fringe lipped Tree Frog Two-striped Tree Frog Common milk Tree Frog

Dendrophryniscus Dendrophryniscus minutus

Leaf Toads Orange bellied leaf toad

Scinax rubra Trachycephalus venulosus

Centrolenidae Centrolene sp. Cochranella anetarsia Cochranella midas Cochranella resplendens

Glass Frogs undescribed Glass Frog Glass Frog Glass Frog Glass Frog

Microhylidae Chiasmocleis bassleri

Sheep Frogs Bassler's Sheep Frog

Leptodactylidae Edalorhina perezi Prystimantis acuminatus

Rain Frogs Eyelashed Forest Frog Green Rain Frog Peruvian Rain Frog Amazonian Rain Frog Chirping Robber Frog Striped-throated Rain Frog Malkini's Rain Frog Marti's rainfrog Carabaya Rain Frog Broad-headed Rain Frog Variable Rain Frog Black-banded Robber Frog Broad-headed Rain Frog Painted Forest Toadlet Cocha Chirping Frog Rose-sided Jungle Frog

Dendrobatidae Ameerega bilinguis Ameerega ingeri Ameerega insperatus Ameerega parvulus Ameerega zaparo Colostethus bocagei Colostethus marchesianus Dendrobates duellmani

Poison Frogs

Prystimantis aff peruvianus Prystimantis altamazonicus

Ruby Poison Frog

Prystimantis conspicillatus Prystimantis lanthanites Prystimantis malkini

Sanguine Poison Frog

Prystimantis martiae Prystimantis ockendeni complex

Ucayali Rocket Frog Duellmans Poison Frog

Prystimantis sulcatus Prystimantis variabilis Hypnodactylus nigrovittatus

Hylidae Cruziohyla craspedopus cf. Sphaenorhychus carneus Dendropsophus bifurcus Dendropsophus marmorata Dendropsophus rhodopeplus Dendropsophus triangulium Hemiphractus aff. scutatus Hyla lanciformis Hyla maomaratus Hylomantis buckleyi Hylomantis hulli Hypsiboas boans Hypsiboas calcarata Hypsiboas geographica Hypsiboas punctatus Hypsiboas geographica Hypsiboas punctatus Osteocephalus cabrerai complex Osteocephalus cf. deridens Osteocephalus leprieurii Osteocephalus planiceps Trachycephalus resinifictrix

Tree Frogs Amazon Leaf Frog Pygmy hatchet-faced Tree Frog Upper Amazon Tree Frog Neotropical Marbled Tree Frog Red Striped Tree Frog Variable Clown Tree Frog Casque-headed Tree Frog Rocket Tree Frog

Strabomantis sulcatus Engystomops petersi Leptodactylus andreae Leptodactylus knudseni Leptodactylus mystaceus Leptodactylus rhodomystax Leptodactylus wagneri Lithodytes lineatus Oreobates quixensis Vanzolinius discodactylus

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

Ranidae Gladiator Tree Frog Convict Tree Frog Map Tree Frog Common Polkadot Tree Frog Araneae Map Tree Frog Nephila clavipes Common Polkadot Tree Frog Ancylometes terrenus Forest bromeliad Tree Frog Rana palmipes

True Frogs Neotropical Green Frog

Class Arachnida

Golden Silk Spider Giant Fishing Spider

Class Insecta
Common bromeliad Tree Frog Flat-headed bromeliad Tree Frog Amazonian Milk Tree Frog Coleoptera Euchroma gigantea Giant Ceiba Borer


Homoeotelus d'orbignyi

Pleasing Fungus Beetle

Eunica alpais Eunica amelio

Scarabaeidae Canthon luteicollis Deltochilum howdeni Dichotomius ohausi Dichotomius prietoi Eurysternus caribaeus Eurysternus confusus Eurysternus foedus Eurysternus inflexus Eurysternus plebejus

Eunica clytia Eunica volumna Hamadryas albicornus Hamadryas arinome Hamadryas chloe Hamadryas feronia Hamadryas laodamia Nessaea batesii Nessaea hewitsoni Nica flavilla Panacea prola

Grylloptera Panacanthus cuspidatus Hemiptera Dysodius lunatus Lunate Flatbug Spiny Devil Katydid

Panacea regina Paulogramma peristera Phrrhogyra amphiro Pyrrhogyra crameri Pyrrhogyra cuparina

Lepidoptera Lycaenidae Celmia celmus Janthecla sista Thecla aetolius Thecla mavors Colobura annulata Colobura dirce

Pyrrhogyra cf nasica Pyrrhogyra otolais Temenis laothoe

Charaxinae Agrias claudina Archaeoprepona amphimachus Archaeoprepona demophon Archaeoprepona demophon muson

Nymphalidae Apaturinae Doxocopa agathina Doxocopa griseldis Doxocopa laurentia Doxocopa linda

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

Biblidinae Biblis hyperia Callicore cynosura Catonephele acontius Catonephele esite Catonephele numilia Diaethria clymena Dynamine aerata Dynamine arthemisia Dynamine athemon Dynamine gisella Ectima thecla lerina

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

Cyrestinae Marpesia berania Marpesia crethon Marpesia petreus


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

Heliconius doris Philaethria dido

Limenitidinae Adelpha amazona Adelpha cocala Adelpha cytherea Adelpha erotia

Danainae Danaini Danaus plexippus Ithomiini Aeria eurimidea Ceratinia tutia Hypoleria sarepta Hyposcada anchiala Hyposcada illinissa Hypothyris anastasia Hypothyris fluonia Ithomia amarilla Ithomia salapia Mechanitis lysimnia Mechanitis mazaeus Mechanitis messenoides Methona confusa psamathe Methone Cecilia Oleria gunilla Oleria ilerdina Oleria tigilla Tithorea harmonia

Adelpha iphicleola Adelpha iphiclus Adelpha lerna Adelpha melona Adelpha mesentina Adelpha naxia Adelpha panaema Adelpha phrolseola Adelpha thoasa Adelpha viola Adelpha ximena

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

Heliconinae Acraeini Actinote sp. Heliconiini Dryas iulia Eueides Eunice Eueides isabella Eueides lampeto Eueides lybia Heliconius erato Heliconius hecale Heliconius melponmene Heliconius numata Heliconius sara Heliconius xanthocles

Siproeta stelenes Smyrna blomfildia Tigridia acesta

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


Catoblepia generosa Catoblepia sorannus Catoblepia xanthus Opsiphanes invirae

Magneuptychia tiessa Pareuptychia hesionides Pareuptychia ocirrhoe Taygetis cleopatra Taygetis echo Cleopatra Satyr Echo Satyr Pareuptychia hesionides

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

Taygetis mermeria Taygetis sosis Sosis Satyr

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

Morphini Antirrhea hela Antirrhea philoctetes avernus Morpho achilles Morpho deidamia Morpho helenor Morpho menelaus Morpho peleides Morpho polycarmes Common Brown Morpho Riodinidae Amarynthis meneria Ancyluris endaemon Ancyluris aulestes Ancyluris etias Anteros renaldus Calospila cilissa Calospila partholon Calospila emylius Satyrini Caeruleuptychia scopulata Chloreuptychia agatha Chloreuptychia herseis Euptychia binoculata Euptychia labe Euptychia myncea Euptychia renata Hermeuptychia hermes Sarota chrysus Sarota spicata Setabis gelasine Stalachtis calliope Stalachtis phaedusa Synargis orestessa Magneuptychia analis Magneuptychia libye Magneuptychia ocnus Magneuptychia ocypete Calydna venusta Cartea vitula Emesis fatinella Emesis lucinda Emesis mandana Emesis ocypore Eurybia dardus Eurybia elvina Eurybia franciscana Eurybia halimede Eurybia unxia Hyphilaria parthenis Isapis agyrtus Ithomiola floralis Lasaia agesilaus narses Lasaia pseudomeris Leucochimona vestalis Livendula amaris Livendula violacea


Lyropteryx appolonia Mesophthalma idotea Mesosemia loruhama Mesosemia latizonata Napaea heteroea Nymphidium mantus Nyphidium nr minuta Nymphidium lysimon Nymphidium balbinus Nymphidium caricae Nymphidium chione Pandemos Pasiphae Perophtalma lasus Pirascca tyriotes Rhetus arcius Rhetus periander


10.2 Yachana Reserve Map


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

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