Global Vision International

2010 Report Series No. 001

GVI Ecuador

Rainforest Conservation and Community

Development

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

GVI Ecuador/Rainforest Conservation and Community Development Expedition Report 101

` Submitted in whole to

Global Vision International Yachana Foundation

Museo Ecuatoriano de Ciencias Naturales (MECN)

Produced by Chris Beirne – Field Manager Oliver Burdikin – Field Staff Simon Mitchell –Field Staff

and

Craig Herbert Scholar Katherine Parker Volunteer

Jill Robinson Scholar Skylar Senti Volunteer

Jasmine Rowe Scholar Rachel Smith Volunteer

Laura Jones Intern Hugo Sykes Volunteer

Thomas Smith Intern Amelia Wheeler Volunteer

Rachel Adler Volunteer Roberth Alvarado High school student

Bianca Amato Volunteer Christian Andi High school student

Stef DuFresne Volunteer Javier Andy High school student

Anna Flanagan Volunteer Marianna Conforme High school student

Alistair Gorden Volunteer Richard Dahua High school student

James Mallard Volunteer Abel Kunchicuy High school student

Benny Mansfield Volunteer Christian Vega High school student

Robert McCann Volunteer Mauricio Andi High school graduate

Valerie Mills Volunteer

Prashant Mistry Volunteer

Edited by

Karina Berg – Country Director

GVI Ecuador/Rainforest Conservation and Community Development Address: Casilla Postal 17-07-8832

Quito, Ecuador Email: ecuador@gviworld.com

Web page: http://www.gvi.co.uk and http://www.gviusa.com

3

Executive Summary

This report documents the work of Global Vision International’s (GVI) Rainforest

Conservation and Community Development Expedition in Ecuador’s Amazon region

and run in partnership with the Yachana Foundation, based at the Yachana Reserve in

the province of Napo. During the first phase of 2010 from Friday 8th January to Friday

19th March, GVI has:

• Added three new species to the reserve list; Ornate Hawk-eagle (Spizaetus

ornatus), Hog-nosed Pitviper (Bothrops hyoprora), and the Neotropical marbled

Frog (Hyla maromaratus).

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

• Continued to collect data on the effect of structural habitat change on the

amphibian and reptile communities, using pitfall trapping and visual encounter surveys.

• Continued with a project investigating the effects of disturbance from the road upon

butterfly communities.

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

• Continued with English lessons for local school children in Puerto Rico twice a

week.

• Continued giving English classes at Puerto Salazar whenever possible.

• Welcomed four pasantias (work experience students) from the Yachana Technical

High School to join the expedition, in order to exchange language skills, knowledge and

experience.

• Visited Yasuní National Park and Sumak Allpa, an island reserve and school run by

a local conservationist.

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

the local region.

4

Contents

List of Figures ................................................................................................................. 5

1 Introduction ................................................................................................................ 6

2 Avian Research ......................................................................................................... 9

2.1 Avian Mistnetting ................................................................................... 9

3 Mammal Incidentals ................................................................................................. 15

4 Herpetological Research .......................................................................................... 15

4.1 The Effect of Structural Habitat Change on Herpetofaunal Communities ................................................................................................ 15

5 Butterfly Research ................................................................................................... 20

5.1 Assessment of Antropogenic Disturbance on Butterfly Communities... 20

6 Dung Beetle Research ............................................................................................. 25

6.1 Assessment of the Impact of Structural Habitat Change on Dung Beetle Assemblages .................................................................................... 25

7 Community Development Projects ........................................................................... 34

7.1 Colegio Técnico Yachana (Yachana Technical High School) .............. 34

7.2 TEFL at Puerto Rico ............................................................................ 34

7.3 English Classes at Puerto Salazar ...................................................... 35

8 Future Expedition Aims ............................................................................................ 35

9 References .............................................................................................................. 36

9.1 General References ............................................................................ 36

9.2 Field Use References .......................................................................... 37

9.3 Dung Beetle References ..................................................................... 38

9.4 Amphibian References ........................................................................ 39

9.5 Butterfly References ............................................................................ 42

10 Appendix A - GVI Species List ................................................................................. 43

10.1 Class Aves .......................................................................................... 43

10.2 Class Mammalia .................................................................................. 46

10.3 Class Sauropsida ................................................................................ 47

10.4 Class Amphibia ................................................................................... 48

10.5 Class Arachnida .................................................................................. 49

10.6 Class Insecta ...................................................................................... 49

11 Appendix B – GVI Yachana Reserve Map ............................................................... 53

5

List of Figures

Figure 2.1.1 Map showing the location of each mistnetting site Figure 2.1.2 Summary information regarding vegetation mapping of each mist-netting

site Fig. 2.1.3 Summary Mist-netting Information for Phase 101 Fig. 2.1.4 Summary Mist-netting Information for Phase 094 Figure 4.1.1 Number of individuals found in pitfalls in 101 Figure 4.1.2 Number of individuals found on visual encounter surveys in 101 Figure 4.1.3 Number of individuals found in pitfall traps in total in the project so far Figure 4.1.4 Number of individuals found in total for visual encounter surveys in the

project so far Figure 5.1.1 New standardised dot codes introduced in week 6 of Phase 101 Figure 5.1.2 Number of species and individuals trapped at each trap site

Figure 5.1.3 Average number of species and individuals encountered at each site

Figure 5.1.4 Number of species recorded at each trap in the forest and trail areas Figure 6.1.1 Habitat type of each dung beetle sampling site Figure 6.1.2 Trap layouts at each site Figure 6.1.3 Habitat compared to individuals captured Figure 6.1.4 Individuals identified to species Figure 6.1.5 Comparison of habitat to species richness

6

1 Introduction

The Rainforest Conservation and Community Development Expedition operated by

Global Vision International (GVI) is located in the Yachana Reserve in the Napo

province (0° 50' 45.47"S/ -77° 13' 43.65"W; 300-350m altitude), Amazonian region of

Ecuador. The reserve is legally-designated a Bosque Protector (Protected Forest)

consisting of approximately 1000 hectares of predominantly primary lowland rainforest,

as well as abandoned plantations, grassland, riparian forest, regenerating forest and a

road. The Yachana Reserve is owned and managed by the Yachana Foundation. It is

surrounded by large areas of pasture land, small active cacao farms and currently un-

mapped disturbed primary forest. The road within the Yachana Reserve is a large

Fig. 1.1

GVI Amazon

Rio Napo, Napo Province

7

stone and gravel based road which dissects the primary forest to the north and the

abandoned cacao plantations and grassland areas to the south.

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

facing the Ecuadorian Amazon region. The foundation works with rainforest

communities to improve education, develop community-based medical care, establish

sustainable agricultural practices, provide environmentally sustainable economic

alternatives, and conserve the rainforest. The Yachana Reserve is the result of the

foundation’s efforts to purchase blocks of land for the purpose of conservation. The

Yachana Foundation has a long-term plan of sustainable management for the reserve

according to International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) protected forest

guidelines and guidelines laid out by the Ministerio del Ambiente (Ecuadorian Ministry

of the Environment). One of GVI’s main roles at the reserve is to provide support

where deemed necessary for the development of the management plan. This includes

reserve boundary determination, baseline biodiversity assessments, visitor information

support, and research centre development.

GVI also works closely with the Yachana Technical High School, a unique educational

facility for students from the surrounding region. The high school provides students with

meaningful education and practical experience in sustainable agriculture, animal

husbandry, conservation, eco-tourism, and small business operations. As part of their

experiential learning program, students use the Yachana Reserve and GVI’s presence

as a valuable educational tool. As part of their conservation curriculum, the students

visit the reserve to receive hands on training in some of GVI’s research methodology,

as well as familiarization with ecological systems. On a rotational basis, students spend

time at the reserve where they participate in the current research activities, and receive

conversational English classes from GVI volunteers.

GVI additionally conducts TEFL classes (Teaching English as a Foreign Language) at

the nearby village of Puerto Rico, twice a week. Classes are prepared the day before

and last for one hour. Groups of two or three volunteers conduct the classes, covering

relevant topics to the local school children. This allows GVI to integrate with the local

community, whilst giving volunteers the opportunity to experience firsthand involvement

in community development through teaching English. This is also currently laying the

foundation to introduce environmental education programmes to the Puerto Rico

community in the future.

8

GVI also works with local research institutions. The Museo Ecuatoriano de Ciencias

Naturales, MECN, (Ecuadorian Museum for Natural Sciences) provides technical

assistance with field research and project development. The museum is a government

research institution which houses information and conducts research on the presence

and distribution of floral and faunal species throughout Ecuador. GVI obtains their

investigation permit with the support of MECN for the collection of specimens. The data

and specimens collected by GVI are being lodged with the MECN in order to make this

information nationally and internationally available, and to provide verification of the

field data. MECN technicians are continuously invited to the Yachana Reserve to

conduct in-field training and education for GVI and Yachana students, as well as

explore research opportunities otherwise unavailable.

A major goal for GVI’s research is to shift focus from identifying species in the reserve

to collecting data for management concerns and publication. In collaboration with all

local and international partners, GVI focuses its research on answering ecological

questions related to conservation. With this in mind, several key goals have been

identified:

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

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

9

partners in support of their ongoing work. This report summarises the scientific

research and community-based programmes conducted during the ten-week

expedition from Friday 8th January to Friday 19th March 2010, at the Yachana

Reserve.

2 Avian Research

2.1 Avian Mistnetting

Introduction

As human populations grow, an understanding of anthropogenic change is essential to

understand the conservation of the natural world. Habitat loss is undoubtedly one of the

greatest threats facing tropical forest diversity (Hawes et al. 2008), with over half the

potential tropical closed-canopy forest, defined as tree crown coverage exceeding

60%, having already been removed and put to other use (Wright 2005). However,

there is hope. Despite deforestation reaching alarming levels, 15% of the land

deforested in the 1990s has been reclaimed by natural secondary succession (Wright

2005). This large scale expansion of secondary landscapes may have important

implications for long-term conservation of wildlife (Faria et al, 2007). The total

coverage of non-native and native regeneration will most probably rise further in the

near future due to private investment in carbon-sequestration projects in the tropics

and increased interest in bio fuels and timber (Barlow et al. 2006).

Several studies have optimistically concluded that this expansion of secondary forest

will offset the loss of worldwide biodiversity through destruction of primary habitat

(Wright 2005; Wright and Muller–Landau 2006). Stating that, the observed time lags

between habitat destruction and species extinctions are of sufficient length to allow

secondary forest to mature and regenerate into suitable habitat (Brooks et al; 2002).

Dunn (2004) states that; regenerating tropical secondary forests recover sufficiently in

20-40 years to recover faunal species diversity, but support lesser tree diversities than

old growth forests. Species compositions of flora and fauna communities often differ

between secondary and primary habitats (Blake and Loiselle 2000). The value of

regenerating secondary forest will be context and species dependant. There is a

growing consensus that there is currently a lack of empirical evidence to support the

theories that regenerating disturbed habitats will be sufficient to conserve most forest

species in the future (Gardner et al. 2007). Undoubtedly, further research needs to be

10

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

determined.

There is currently a lack of consensus between many studies examining the impacts of

habitat change on bird communities. Despite birds being the most studied and

understood taxa in the Neotropics, a recent review of literature found that, pre-2008;

only 17 studies examined the value of secondary forest for tropical birds (Barlow et al.

2006). The majority of studies conducted to date have concluded that secondary

forests can support equivalent or high levels of species richness compared to primary

or relatively undisturbed forest (Barlow et al, 2006). Despite these encouraging results,

there are a whole host of problems with the existing studies which make a strong

conclusion of the value of secondary forest for Neotropical birds impossible to

determine (Gardner et al. 2006). For example, several of the studies attribute the high

species richness to the close proximity of primary habitat, resulting in primary species

being transiently recorded in secondary habitat. Several studies also lacked a good

primary forest baseline with which to compare their results (Barlow et al. 2006). This

aims to address the problems highlighted by Gardner et al (2007), to compare

understory bird communities in the disturbed secondary patches of the Yachana

Reserve with the relatively undisturbed patches.

Method

Study Plots

Four net locations were established around the reserve; two in relatively disturbed

areas, two in relatively undisturbed areas (see fig. 2.1.1). The net locations were no

closer than 500m apart at their nearest point as Barlow and Peres (2004) concluded,

based on recaptures of marked individuals, that plots 500m apart were spatially

independent. The net locations are restricted to trails within the reserve, as the hilly

topography makes establishing nets in other locations impossible without destroying

large areas of native vegetation. Plots are random with respect to tree fall gaps,

fruiting trees or other factors which may influence capture rates.

Mistnetting

Understory mistnetting was used to examine the avifauna at each of the four sites

within the reserve. Each site was sampled for 66 to 69 hours between the 18th of

January 2010 and the 10th March 2010. Four 12x2.5m mist nets with 10-40m spacing

(to allow for difficult topography) were established at each site. All nets could be

checked within a 10-15min period. Captured birds were then released away from the

11

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.

Vegetation Mapping

Around each mist-netting site six 100m transects were assessed. Each transect started

250m away from the mist-netting center point and ended 150m away from the center

point, and were spaced evenly to avoid psuedoreplication. The transects were stratified

and placed randomly with regard to topography and habitat. Along each transect, five

canopy coverage estimations were made by two independent observers and the

dominant type of canopy was noted (Absent, Low, Middle and High). All

Melostomatacae and Heliconidae within 5m either side of the transect line were

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

Represents the locations of each mist-netting site within the Yachana Reserve. The pink

dots represent the ‘less disturbed’ sites of Laguna and Frontier, whilst the green dots

represent the ‘more disturbed’ sites of Cascada and Ficus. The blue circles represent

required site separation outlined by Barlow and Perez (2004) to ensure the sites are

independent.

12

counted. All trees >30cm Diameter at Breast Height (DBH) were measured within 5m

either side of the transect line. The presence or absence of trees of the genus

Theobroma and coffee plants were also noted.

Results

Vegetation Profiling

Vegetation profiling was performed in the week immediately following each mist netting

session (see Fig. 2.1.2). The numbers of Melostomacae varied from 156 (Cascada) to

1393 (Ficus). Number of flowing Heliconidae varied from 20 (Laguna) to 124

(Cascada). Coffee showed the most marked difference between the sites from two

(Laguna) to 3230 individuals (Ficus). Cascada and Laguna were dominated by high

canopy (63.3-90%) whereas Ficus and Frontier sites were predominantly mid-canopy.

However, only Cascada and Ficus were found to have gaps in their canopies. The

canopy cover measurement is inconclusive; with all sites spread from 42-53%. The

largest tree located was on the Cascada site; however Frontier had the largest average

DBH measurement. Finally, twelve freshly cut tree trunks were found at the Ficus site,

indicating strong human disturbance.

Fig. 2.1.2

Location Number of Plants Canopy Class (%)

Canopy

Cover

(%) Five largest trees DBH Notes

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

Cascada 156 124 924 63.3 26.7 3.3 6.7 42 143 92 82 80 79

Ficus 1393 15 3230 23.3 56.6 13.3 6.7 51 96 90 90 86 76

12

Stumps

Laguna 664 20 2 90 10 0 0 53 105 96 81 79 76

Frontier 812 30 6 40 53.3 6.7 0 50 128 111 106 99 89

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

The strongest differences observed between the sites were the presence of >900

individuals of coffee at Cascada and Ficus with canopy gap compositions of 6.7%. In

comparision Laguna and Frontier contained <7 individual coffee plants and had a 0%

canopy gap composition. On the basis of these results Cascada and Ficus are

classified as ‘more disturbed’ and Laguna and Frontier are classified as ‘less

disturbed’.

Avifaunal Sampling

In Phase 101 (Fig. 2.1.3) 127 birds were captured in 269 hours of mist-netting between

the dates of 18th of January 2010 and the 10th March 2010. Individuals caught at each

13

site varied from eleven individuals to 35. Each site was subjected to between 66 hours

and 68.3 net hours of sampling. The total number of individuals captured in the ‘more

disturbed’ areas was 23, whereas the total number of individuals captured in the ‘less

disturbed’ areas was 57. The number of species captured at the ‘less disturbed’ sites

was also lower that captured in the ‘more disturbed’ sites (see Fig. 2.1.3). The

understory birds caught at each of the ‘more disturbed’ areas represented only five

different bird families, where as birds caught at the ‘less disturbed’ areas each

represented by eleven and nine different bird families. Capture efficiencies,

represented by number of individuals per mist net hour, where also higher in the ‘less

disturbed’ sites (0.32 and 0.52 indiv.h-1) in comparison to the ‘more disturbed’ sites

(0.18 and 0.17 indiv.h-1).

Fig. 2.1.3 Summary mist-nettingiInformation for Phase 101

More disturbed Less Disturbed

Total Cascada Ficus Laguna Frontier

Net Hours 67.28 66.28 68.30 67.10 269

Number of Individuals 12 11 22 35 80

Individuals per net hour 0.18 0.17 0.32 0.52 0.30

Total Num. of species 8 7 15 20 30

Species per net hour 0.12 0.11 0.22 0.30 0.11

Total Num. of famillies 6 4 10 11 16

Fig. 2.1.4 Summary mist-nettingiInformation for Phase 094

More disturbed Less Disturbed

Total Cascada Ficus Laguna Frontier

Net Hours 69.16 68.88 69.20 64.00 271

Number of Individuals 27 13 39 48 127

Individuals per net

hour 0.39 0.19 0.56 0.75 0.47

Total Num. of species 14 8 17 20 33

Species per net hour 0.20 0.12 0.25 0.31 0.12

Total Num. of famillies 5 5 11 9 16

Direct comparison of summary mist-netting information from Phases 094 (Fig. 2.1.4)

and 101 (Fig. 2.1.3) shows that the total numbers of individuals caught per phase has

decreased from 127 in phase 094 to 80 in phase 101. Previously noted trends that

there is lower species diversity and fewer individuals in the ‘more disturbed’ locations

are consistent between phase 094 and phase 101.

14

Discussion

Vegetation Profiling

Using the vegetation mapping methods, in-field observation and map consultation;

Laguna and Frontier have been classified as ‘less disturbed’ whereas Cascada and

Ficus have been classified as ‘more disturbed’. The crucial differences appear to be

absence/presence of coffee plants and canopy gaps, however, more data must be

collected before these results can be confirmed.

Understory Mist-netting

Several differences between the ‘less disturbed’ and ‘more disturbed’ sites have been

observed. These include: number of species caught, number of individuals caught,

number of families represented, and percentage of individuals of a given family caught

at each site. However, the current sample size of 207 birds is completely prohibitive of

any statistically relevant analysis. The differences observed could be due to but not

limited to: genuine differences in understory bird community richness and structure in

each area, seasonal variations in bird foraging patterns, different weather conditions, or

simply a function of the low number of birds in the data set. The only way to begin to

address these potential factors is to increase the size of data set through repeated

sampling at each study site until enough data is obtained. Until that point, any

conclusions will be simply speculation.

The comparison of phase data from Phase 094 to Phase 101 is interesting. There was

a clear drop in the number of individuals caught at all sites. This could be due to

seasonal fluctuations in weather, local food availability effects or the disturbance

caused by the mist-netting method itself. It will be interesting to see if this trend

continues as this project moves into its next phase. The number of different species

caught at each site remained consistent, which would indicate that the observed drop is

in the number of individuals only – not a decrease in diversity.

Future Work

Both the understory mist-netting and vegetation mapping will be continued in their

current forms as they appear to be functioning effectively.

15

3 Mammal Incidentals

Introduction

GVI continues to document mammal species activity in the reserve predominately

through incidental mammal and track sightings. This is confined to incidental

recordings due to the low occurrence of conspicuous diurnal mammals. Excessive

mammal surveying has proved to not be sufficiently productive.

Methods

All mammal species encountered outside of specific mammal surveys were recorded.

Incidental sightings can take place during any of the other survey or project work within

the reserve, or during long walks into the forest. At the occurence of each incidence,

the time, location, date, species, and any other key characteristics or notes are taken

and later entered into a database in camp.

Sightings

During this phase various mammal species were recorded incidentally, whilst groups

were participating in other survey work or walks in the forest. Incidental sightings

included encounters with the Amazon Red Squirrel (Sciurus sp.), Black Agouti

(Dasyprocta fuliginosa), Black-mantled Tamarins (Saguinus nigricollis), Coatis (Nasua

nasua), Kinkajou (Potos flavus), Night Monkeys (Aotus sp.), Common Opossum

(Didelphis marsupialis), Water Opossum (Chironectes minimus) and Water Rat

(Nectomys squamipes), Paca (Agouti paca). Also recorded were various unidentified

small rodents found in the amphibian pitfall traps.

4 Herpetological Research

4.1 The Effect of Structural Habitat Change on Herpetofaunal Communities

Introduction

One of the key drivers of worldwide species loss is habitat change; defined as habitat

deforestation, fragmentation and deterioration (Urbina-Cardona, 2008). The rapid rate

of forest conversion in the Neotropics has been offset by large-scale expansion of

secondary forest, plantation and pastureland (Wright SJ, 2005; Gardner et al. 2007b).

Despite the increasingly dominant role of these degraded habitats in the tropical

landscape, there is little consensus within the scientific community about the extent of

its conservation value (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

16

species due to habitat change may be premature. However, there is currently a lack of

empirical evidence to support the theory that regenerating forests can fully support

native forest species (Gardner 2007c).

Two recent multiple taxa assessments, conducted on the cubraca cacao plantations of

Bahia, Brazil (Pardini et al. IN PRESS) and eucalyptus plantations of the Jari forestry

project, Brazil (Barlow et al. 2007), found that responses to structural habitat change

were taxon specific. Barlow et al. (2007) found that four of the fifteen taxa analysed

(trees and lianas, birds, fruit feeding butterflies, and leaf litter amphibians) were found

to decrease in species richness with increasing habitat disturbance. However, five taxa

(large mammals, epigiec arachnids, lizards, dung beetles and bats) exhibit idiosyncratic

responses to habitat change (Barlow et al. 2007). Both studies concluded that

responses to structural habitat change will be species specific, not simply taxon

specific. Analysis of a generalised taxon response is likely to hide a higher level of

species specific disturbance responses which are important when designing

conservation strategies (Barlow et al 2007; Pardini et al. 2009). These studies highlight

the importance of performing multiple taxa assessments that are species specific

relating to the conservation value of secondary and plantation forests.

Problem Statement

The Neotropics are estimated to contain nearly 50% of the worlds amphibians (IUCN,

2007) and 32% of the worlds reptiles (Young et al. 2004), this equates to over 3000

species of each taxon. Within the continental Neotropics, the 17 countries in Central

and South America, there are 1685 species of amphibian and 296 species of reptiles

considered endangered. Amphibians and reptiles are considered to be the most

threatened groups of terrestrial vertebrates (J. Gardner 2007b). There have been many

factors implicated in threatening populations of amphibians and reptiles, including

habitat loss and change, the virulent Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis pathogen, climate

change (Whitfield et al. 2007), ultraviolet-B radiation (Broomhall et al. 2000), and

agrochemical contaminants (Bridges et al. 2000).

Current State of Amphibian and Reptile Research

Amphibians and reptiles are important primary, mid-level and top consumers in

Neotropical ecosystems; therefore, it is important to understand the responses of these

organisms to structural habitat change (Bell et al. 2006). Despite its apparent severity,

the amount of research time given to studying the impacts of habitat change on

amphibian and reptile populations is relatively low. This is especially true in the

17

Neotropics which, despite an estimated 89% of threatened species being affected by

habitat loss, has only been the subject of 10% of the world’s herpetological studies

(Gardner et al 2007a). There is a general consensus amongst herpetologists that the

effect of structural habitat change on determining amphibian and reptiles and

distributions is limited (Pearman, 1997; Krishnamurthy, 2003; Urbina-Cardona, 2006;

Gardner et al, 2007b).

A recent global scale review of the state of amphibian and reptile research regarding

structural habitat change highlighted several serious deficiencies: i) There is currently a

strong study bias away from the Neotropics towards North America and Australia. ii)

Published studies report contradictory responses of amphibian and reptile populations

to habitat change. iii) There are several common limitations in study methodology and

analysis (Gardner et al. 2007a).

Aims of the Research

• Assess the ability of secondary forest (abandoned cacao plantation) to preserve

leaflitter herpetofaunal richness, distribution and abundance in comparison to

primary forest habitat.

• Understand the effects of structural habitat change within the Neotropics.

• Identify the responses of different herpetofaunal groups/species to structural

habitat change.

Methods

In Phase 101, data was collected between 16th January to10th March 2010.

Nocturnal and Diurnal Visual Encounter Surveys

Twelve 75m transects in both the primary and secondary locations were established.

Care was taken to space transects sufficiently to avoid psuedoreplication. Transects

were marked with coloured transect tape to avoid unnecessary habitat modification.

Where possible, the transects were located at least 10m from streams and 100m from

forest edges to avoid biases resulting from increases in species richness and

abundance, which could result in confusion about the true effect of structural habitat

change on amphibian and reptile diversity.

Visual encounter surveys have been shown to be one of the most effective methods for

sampling tropical herpetofaunas (Bell et al, 2006). They have been repeatedly shown

to yield greater numbers of individuals per effort than other sampling methods in recent

18

publications (Ernst and Rodel, 2004; Donnelly et al 2005) and GVI’s own preliminary

investigations. Each transect was searched by six observers (strip width = 6m, duration

= 1h 30m).

Pitfall Trapping

Twelve pitfall arrays were also established in both primary and secondary forest. Each

array consists of four 25L buckets with 8m long by 50cm high plastic drift fence

connecting them in linear shaped design. When open, the pitfalls were checked at once

a day.

Particular care was taken to ensure that sampling effort is equal for both primary and

secondary habitats. This ensures maximum comparability in the resultant data sets.

Any amphibians or reptiles encountered through either method were identified in the

field using available literature and released. Any individual which could not be identified

was taken back to the GVI base camp for further analysis. A small proportion of the

captured individuals, including those that could not be identified, were anaesthetised

with Lidocaine and fixed with 10% formalin. All preseserved specimens are stored at

the Museo Ecuatoriano de Ciencias Naturales (MECN).

Surveying primary rainforest habitat is a privileged opportunity; however there is the

potential to negatively affect the ecosystem by passing infections between sites and

species. Good practices are strictly adhered to so as to ensure transmissions are not

possible. This is achieved by systematic cleaning of tools, equipment, and sterile bags

are changed when handling different individuals. Under no circumstances did

amphibians or reptiles come in contact with exposed human skin tissue.

Results

Species Encountered in 101

During this phase, 284 identified reptile and amphibian individuals were encountered,

comprising 19 species of amphibian and 16 species of reptile.

Pitfalls in Phase 101

Figure 4.1.1 Number of individuals found in pitfalls in Phase 101

Amphibians and

reptiles

Amphibians Reptiles

Total 163 132 31

19

Visual Encounter Surveys in Phase 101

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

Amphibians and

reptiles

Amphibians Reptiles

Total

(approx 1080 mins survey

time with 5/6 searchers)

121 109 12

Species Encountered Overall in the Project So Far:

During the whole project to date, 1479 identified reptile and amphibian individuals have

been encountered.

Pitfalls

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

Amphibians and

reptiles

Amphibians Reptiles

Total 701 589 122

Visual Encounter Surveys

Figure 4.1.4: Number of individuals found in total for visual encounter surveys in the

project so far

Amphibians and

reptiles

Amphibians Reptiles

Total

(approx 5760 mins survey

time with 5/6 searchers)

778 719 59

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.

20

It should be noted that Pristimantis ockendeni has recently been identified as three

different species and the species found within this reserve has been identified as

Pristimantis kichwarum. This identification has been made by observations of

morphological features and verification of photographs by specialists working on the

initial identification of these species.

The methods used within the past ten weeks will continue into the next phase so that

changes in species assemblages can be observed over an annual period of time.

The resultant analysis which will be used when a greater amount of data has been

gathered will involve multivariate analysis such as principal component analysis and

also decision tree analysis that may be applied to the development of a model used to

determine the types of amphibians and reptiles found in specific habitat types.

5 Butterfly Research

5.1 Assessment of Antropogenic Disturbance on Butterfly Communities

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,

21

riparian and regenerating forest. A road 15m wide runs through the middle of the

reserve, connecting it to the surrounding agricultural landscape. In addition to this,

there are a number of trails on either side of the road which are walked regularly by

individuals and groups of up to eight volunteers. This presents an excellent opportunity

to investigate the effects of disturbance from the road, in addition to making paired

comparisons between disturbed trails and nearby undisturbed forest transects.

Sparrow et al. (1994) recommend including both disturbed and undisturbed habitat

types in monitoring programs investigating butterfly community variation.

Method

Data collection continued on the established series of 200m transects on the Columbia

and Frontier Trails. The same sampling sites located every 50m continued to be

monitored. The Columbia and Frontier Trails run roughly perpendicular to the road and

receive heavy usage from GVI volunteers, Yachana tourtists and locals. Each sampling

site was paired with an undisturbed site located 75m perpendicular to the trail in the

forest to assess the impact of the trails on fruit-feeding nymphalid butterfly

communities. Traps 1-10 were located on Frontier while traps 11-20 were on Columbia.

Odd numbered traps were on the trails while the even numbered traps were in the

forest.

As in the previous phases of the study, two baited traps were suspended with the base

hanging approximately 1.5 meters above the ground at each sampling site. The traps

were baited and maintained for 14 consecutive days and checked daily in the

afternoon. New bait was added to the traps on the third day of sampling. The bait,

consisting of mashed, fermented bananas, was prepared following the methods of

DeVries and Walla (1999).

Captured butterflies were identified in the field by GVI volunteers and staff. When

identification in the field was not possible, photos of the specimen where taken and/or

the specimen was brought back to camp for further study. During previous phases of

study butterflies had been marked on the hindwing with non-toxic permanent marker

and replaced in the traps in order to measure escape rates.

Although marking in order to measure recapture rates has continued since the initiation

of the project, the dot codes used to refer to different traps have been inconsistent,

rendering a long period of recapture data unusable. This resulted from unexpected

22

changes in staff members running the project in phase 101. The dot code used during

the first six weeks of phase 101 was not standardised between observers and

recaptures of butterflies initially caught during this period show inconsistent dot code

markings. During the latter part of Phase 101 a standardised dot code was introduced

(Fig.5.1.1). Since nymphalidae and other detritivorous tribes can have a life span of

three to six months (Florida Museum Of Natural History, 2010; Turner 1971) recapture

data should be considered unsafe for the next phase and carefully monitored until no

further discrepancies from the new dot codes are noted.

Figure 5.1.1The new standardised dot codes introduced in week six of Phase 101.

It is worth noting that although specific dot-code data is unreliable all butterflies caught

continued to be marked before release. Therefore it will continue to be possible to

differentiate between recaptures and newly-caught individuals and hence avoid any

pseudo-replication.

Since data collection to explore escape rates and the nymphalid-vegetation relationship

had both been undertaken at the outset of the project it was not necessary to

undertake further vegetation mapping or escape experiments.

Results

Overall 187 individuals of at least 36 different species were captured over the two 14-

day periods with an additional twelve species still awaiting identification confirmation.

Only one new species was confirmed for the Yachana Reserve species list – Caligo

23

euphorbas, however, several of the specimens awaiting identification were also

suspected to be new to the reserve species list.

Some preliminary analysis all the data collected since the initiation of the project was

attempted, with the aim of elucidating some of the original trends sought in the initial

project proposal, namely the difference in the butterfly communities in areas of varying

levels of disturbance. Figure 5.1.2 displays the number of species and number of

individuals caught in each trap since the beginning of the project.

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

Locations Number of

Species

Number of Individuals

Forest Average 15.8 27.7

Forest Standard

Deviation

3.5 7.7

Trail Average 13.7 29.1

Trail Standard

Deviation

3.3 8.5

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

Trap Type Trap

Number

Total Number of

Species Trapped

Total Number of Individuals

Trapped

Trail 3 13 18

Trail 5 16 31

Trail 7 13 31

Trail 9 15 39

Trail 11 17 38

Trail 13 9 17

Trail 15 13 28

Trail 17 19 38

Trail 19 9 22

Forest 4 10 18

Forest 6 21 41

Forest 8 19 28

Forest 10 17 35

Forest 12 19 35

Forest 14 15 27

Forest 16 16 23

Forest 18 14 23

Forest 20 12 20

24

A greater diversity of butterflies was found in the undisturbed forest locations. However,

the number of individuals averaged marginally higher in traps on the disturbed trails.

The averages for both undisturbed forest and disturbed trails are displayed in the table

and graph below (Fig 5.1.3, Fig. 5.1.4).

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

Discussion

The two two-week periods of capture were marked by significantly lower capture levels

than in previous phases (187 individuals over the 28 days in comparison with 184

individuals in only 14 days during 094b). This was thought to be mainly due to changes

in the weather linked with a change into the wet season (more periods of heavy

rainfall), since it is know that butterflies alter their levels of activity according to climatic

conditions (Clench, 1966) with rainfall also reducing population (Hamer et al., 2003). It

was also speculated that slight changes in the practice of banana bait preparation may

have affected the attractiveness of the bait used. The methodology devised by Devries

& Walla (1999) will be followed exactly from this point forward in order to rule out any

bias from quality of bait.

More species were recorded in undisturbed forest sites that disturbed trail sites

although this is not currently a strong enough trend to be statistically significant.

Several studies have found the opposite of this; that more disturbed habitats tend to

hold great diversity of butterflies (Hamer et al. 2003). However, anthropological

Number of Species Recorded in Each Trap in Forest and Trail Areas

0

5

10

15

20

25

Trail

Trail

Trail

Trail

Trail

Trail

Trail

Trail

Trail

Fores

t

Fores

t

Fores

t

Fores

t

Fores

t

Fores

t

Fores

t

Fores

t

Fores

t

Number of Species

25

disturbance (rather than natural disturbance) has been shown to be negatively

correlated with butterfly diversity in certain forest habitats (Brown & Frietas, 2000).

Further data and more statistically robust analysis are required before the trends

tentatively identified by the analysis here can be confirmed, it will also be necessary to

check the data fit a normal or log-normal distribution. On average marginally more

individuals have been recorded from trail-base traps than undisturbed forest, although

this was such a minimal difference that it seems unlikely to be significant even once

further data are collected. .

This project will continue using the same methods as initially set out in the project

proposal (Brimble, 2009) next phase to acquire a larger sample size. Specimens and

photos of the unidentified species have been retained for future identification.

6 Dung Beetle Research

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

Assemblages

Introduction

Dung beetles (Order Coleoptera, Family Scarabaeidae, Subfamily Scarabaeinae) are

particularly vulnerable to habitat fragmentation and changes in habitat and fauna, this

sensitivity allows them to be extremely useful as indicators of ecosystem health

(Halffter et al. 1992; Klein 1989). For these reasons their use as indicator species for

Neotropical habitat disturbance research has increased in recent years.

An omnipresent component of tropical biotas, dung beetles perform constructive

ecosystem functions. Dung beetles are primarily associated with mammals; they are

indicators of mammalian abundance and possibly diversity. Nevertheless, dung

beetles’ functions in ecological systems go far beyond the status of an indicator. By

burying dung on which adults and larvae feed upon, dung beetles act as secondary

seed dispersers, accelerate nutrient recycling rates, increase plant yield and regulate

vertebrate parasites (Mittal, 1993; Andresen, 1999). (Hanski & Cambefort 1991;

Halffter & Matthews 1966; Estrada et al. 1991). Due to their influence, the decline in

dung beetle abundance and diversity may have cascading effects on the environment.

Habitat fragmentation is one of the most widespread and pervasive human activities

impacting upon the earth’s dwindling tropical rainforest habitats. Fragmentation

26

reduces total habitat area and creates subpopulations of species which are isolated

from one another, in turn disrupting individual and population behaviour (Hanski et al.,

1995). In addition, exchange of genes between populations, species interactions and

subsequently ecological processes are reduced (Aizen & Feinsinger, 1994; Saunders

et al., 1991). Fragmentation also modifies physical conditions, creating habitat edges

that are different from habitat interiors (Diamond, 1975). It has been estimated that the

area of Amazonian rainforest modified by such edge effects exceeds the area that has

been cleared by felling (Skole & Tucker, 1994).

Regeneration and restoration of forests through conservation efforts may mitigate

some current deforestation; however, a number of major obstacles still constrain

rainforest regeneration. According to several studies, the most significant factor in

regeneration is the transport of seeds to deforested sites (Young et al.1987, Pannell

1989, Nepstad et al. 1991, Buschbacher et al. 1992, Chapman & Chapman 1999, Holl

1999). Monitoring dung beetle assemblages in their associated habitats is essential in

conservation projects that aim to maintain the regeneration ability of forest fragments,

and ecosystem health (Andresen, 2003).

This study aims to survey dung beetles in tropical rainforest forest fragments located in

the Ecuadorian Amazon at the Yachana Reserve, to examine the effects of habitat

fragmentation on species diversity and abundance of these beetles.

This research addresses two main questions in the study at the reserve: (1) Does

habitat, isolation, or the density of trees of a fragment affect species richness, and

abundance? (2) Does fragmentation, isolation, or tree density affect the abundance of

the dominant species?

Methods

Study Site

All research was performed directly on, or in the area immediately surrounding, the

Yachana Reserve (see Appendix B). The road within the Yachana reserve is a large

stone and gravel based road which dissects the primary forest to the north and the

abandoned cacao plantations to the south. A growing body of research suggests that

roads can have a negative impact on species diversity (Cushman et al. 2006). Roads

can decrease dispersal, reduce genetic diversity and increase mortality. These affects

were considered when interpreting any data obtained.

27

Nine sites were chosen at random and marked throughout the Yachana Reserve

during Phase 092, 2009. Each site contained four baited pitfall traps, each positioned

on the corner of a 50m x 50m grid (refer to Figure 6.1.2), in order to minimize trap

interference and the effect of wind upon trap detectability (Larsen and Forsyth, 2005).

Five sites were placed within primary rainforest and four within the secondary matrix.

This allowed direct comparisons to be made between these two habitat types (refer to

Fig 6.1.1). Individual trap catches were pooled together for each site. Two sites were

exposed at one time (a trapping station from the primary forest and a trapping station

from the secondary matrix), in random combinations, so as to minimize the effect of

weather variability upon overall catch data. During the Phase 101 each trapping site

was sampled for 48 hours (apart from DB5 and DB9, sampled for only 24 hours), at

trapping stations spread throughout the habitat matrices. Traps were emptied every 24

hours. Each 24-hour sample from a trap was considered a single trap day. Trapping

periods lasted 48 hours in most cases. Beetles were identified by the author and

confirmed with assistance of specialists from the Museo Ecuatoriano de Ciencias

Naturales (MECN) in Quito. Beetles measuring ≥ 13 mm were considered as large.

Voucher specimens are temporarily held at GVI’s workstation within the Yachana

Reserve.

Site Habitat Type

DB1 Primary rainforest/Less disturbed

DB2 Primary rainforest/Less disturbed

DB3 Primary rainforest/Less disturbed

DB4 Primary rainforest/Less disturbed

DB5 Primary rainforest/Less disturbed

DB6 Secondary rainforest

DB7 Grassland with intermittent trees, bordered by secondary forest

DB8 Grassland with intermittent trees, bordered by secondary forest

DB9 Recovering Cacao plantation

Figure 6.1.1 Habitat type of each dung beetle sampling site

28

Figure 6.1.2 Trap layouts at each site

Each pitfall trap is constructed of a 16oz plastic container, baited with a dung ball

suspended above it. Containers were placed in a hole dug in the ground so that the top

was flush with the surrounding soil, allowing beetles to fall into the trap. All leaf litter

and vegetation was removed in a 25cm radius around each trap, as this was found

during preliminary investigations to affect trap efficiency (See Phase Report 091).

Traps were filled with an inch of water containing scent-free liquid detergent in order to

increase viscosity, to prevent beetles from escaping. Fresh dung, used as bait, was

collected from a horse on the morning of baiting the traps. 50cc of bait was suspended

in muslin netting 5cm above the lip of each trap, held in place by string and suspended

at the end of an angled stick placed in the ground. A plate was positioned 5cm above

the top of the bait ball using three upright sticks, in order to prevent rain and beetles

from landing directly on the dung bait.

Habitat Feature Mapping

Species occupy a particular habitat for breeding because the habitat contains certain

environmental factors that allow a species to carry out its life history (Hilden 1965,

James et al. 1984). Vegetation structure is of considerable importance to dung beetle

species habitat (MacArthur and MacArthur 1961, Hilden 1965, James 1971, Cody

1981, 1985). Some dung beetle species are specifically adapted to a vegetation

structure that meets their foraging requirements (Hilden 1965, Robinson and Holmes

29

1982, Cody 1985). To accurately assess dung beetle behavior, a thorough knowledge

of the vegetation structure of the habitats that they occupy is critical.

In most studies of habitat selection, the vegetation structure of occupied sites is

compared to unoccupied sites and sampling is usually done in one general location

within a species range (e.g., Haggerty 1986, 1998, Dunning and Watts 1990,

Plentovich et al. 1998). Although this method may indicate the major features that

determine occupancy, it does not necessarily indicate those features that may be the

most critical for occupancy.

An alternative approach, and the one used in this study, is to compare the vegetation

structure of occupied sites from a broad geographic perspective (James et al. 1984). If

it is assumed that a species have similar foraging and nest-site selection behaviors

throughout its range, then we can expect to see similarities in the vegetation structure

of different localities, even though other variables (e.g., floristics, tree age,

management practices) may be different. Similarities and differences in the vegetation

structure from different localities may help identify structural features that are more or

less critical for occupancy, respectively. Further, this approach may give a better

understanding of the vegetation structure that may constrain the distribution of a

species (James et al. 1984, Parrish 1995).

Vegetation profiling of nine sites within the Yachana Reserve was performed in

October 2009. Vegetation mapping was performed at each pitfall trap on a transect

station. To ensure an appropriate level of independence, data from sample circles for

each site were pooled and the site was used as the sample unit in all statistical

analyses.

Seven variables were measured at each trapping location using the methods of James

and Shugart (1970) and Wiens (1973) (Table 1). A sample grid was created, placed

directly over the desired pitfall trap location. Grid lines were extended 15 feet, in each

of the four cardinal directions. Quadrants (I-IV) were established to ensure the most

accurate data recording. Tree (dbh [greater than] 15 cm) density was determined by

counting and measuring the number of live and dead trees within the sample plot.

Percent canopy and understory canopy coverage were determined by estimation.

Vegetation density was measured by counting the number of vegetation hits along the

quadrant tape markers placed on the ground. Percent woody, shrub, grass, and litter

30

covers were estimated by noting if these vegetation types came in contact with a

vertically held rod that was placed at ten equally spaced points. Litter depth was

measured within 6 cm of the base of a vertically held measurement tool. Soil samples

were taken at four different locations within the established quadrants and were then

characterized and classified using the USCS (Unified Soil Classification System).

Results and Discussion

Habitat Structure

Currently the disturbance status of each site has been estimated through on-site

observation and examination of the reserve map, however this simply is not reliable

enough. The importance of vegetation structure in determining patterns of species

diversity and abundance is well established (Hawes et al. 2008). Vegetation mapping

of each trapping station has been completed but is not incorporated in this report.

Pitfall Trap Sampling

During Phase 101 the baited pitfall traps captured a total of 2121 individuals comprised

of 18 identifiable species and eight genera within 384 hours of trapping. Sampling

occurred from January 8, 2010 to March 19, 2010. Two of the sites (DB5 and DB9)

were sampled for only 24 hours due to a limitation of resources. In order to make

these sites comparable, the average percentage decline in the number of trapped

beetles between 24 and 48 hours was calculated for each habitat type using the

available data. This average percentage decline was then applied to the number of

trapped individuals within 24 hours to extrapolate how many may have been caught

had the traps been open for 48 hours.

The highest catch yielded 706 individuals comprised of ten different identifiable species

within a 48 hour trapping period, located within the primary forest (DB4). The lowest

catch yielded four individuals, comprised of two different identifiable species after a 48

hour trapping period (DB3) within the primary undisturbed forest (Figure 6.1.3).

31

Primary Undisturbed Individuals

Secondary

Disturbed Individuals

DB1- Ficus 18 DB6- Ridge 179

DB2- Upper B-loop 363 DB7- Buena Vista 234

DB3- Inca 4 DB8 -Buena Vista 124

DB4- Upper Frontier 706 DB9 -Cacao Grove 349 (534)*

DB5- Ficus (road) 144 (167*)

Total 1235 Total 886

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

Figure 6.1.3: Habitat compared to individuals captured

The primary, undisturbed habitat shows a greater variance in the number of individuals

caught at each site from the lowest number of individuals caught (4) to the highest

(706).

In order to draw conclusions from the data it is necessary to identify beetles to species

level. This was not possible in all cases due to the complexity of the field of dung

beetle taxonomy. However, Figure 6.1.4 below presents the data regarding only those

individuals identified to species.

The most commonly found species across both habitat types was Eurysternus

caribaeus. Overall, more identifiable beetles were found in the primary habitats, yet the

number of individuals trapped in secondary habitats was greater than that of primary

habitats. This may suggest greater species diversity within secondary habitats.

However, seven of the identifiable species found within primary habitats were not found

in secondary habitats. These included Onthophagus pubresas, Deltochilum

granulatum and Eurysternus hypocrita.

32

Fig

ure

6.1

.4 Indiv

iduals

identified t

o s

pecie

s

H

ab

ita

t P

rim

ary

– U

nd

istu

rbe

d

Se

con

da

ry -

Dis

turb

ed

T

ota

ls

T

rap

Nu

mb

er

DB

1

DB

2

DB

3

DB

4

DB

5

DB

6

DB

7

DB

8

DB

9

Pri

ma

ry

Se

con

da

ry

Identified to Species

Ca

nth

idiu

m s

p.

Aff

. H

istr

io

0

0

0

2

0

0

0

0

0

2

0

Ca

nth

on

lu

teic

ollis

2

8

0

1

4

1

3

3

0

2

28

8

De

lto

chilu

m g

ran

ula

tum

0

0

0

8

0

0

0

0

0

8

0

Dic

ho

tom

ius

ah

au

s 0

0

0

0

0

1

0

0

0

1

1

Dic

ho

tom

ius

con

cico

llis

0

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

Dic

ho

tom

ius

pre

ito

i 1

3

0

5

2

1

0

0

0

1

2

1

Eu

ryst

ern

us

cari

ba

eu

s 4

2

8

0

11

5

76

3

7

3

1

44

2

60

8

5

Eu

ryst

ern

us

con

fusu

s 0

1

5

0

1

33

0

4

2

7

4

9

13

Eu

ryst

ern

us

foe

du

s 0

6

0

7

2

4

3

2

1

1

9

10

Eu

ryst

ern

us

hyp

ocr

ita

0

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

Eu

ryst

ern

us

infl

exu

s 1

2

6

1

53

9

1

1

3

6

5

10

1

25

Eu

ryst

ern

us

ple

be

jus

1

1

1

0

0

1

22

1

2

0

4

35

On

tho

ph

ag

us

acu

min

ate

s 0

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

0

0

1

On

tho

ph

ag

us

ha

em

ato

pu

s 0

1

1

0

0

0

7

0

0

0

18

7

On

tho

ph

ag

us

nyc

top

us

1

31

0

0

5

2

1

0

0

54

5

8

75

On

tho

ph

ag

us

oe

re

0

0

0

0

6

0

0

0

0

6

0

On

tho

ph

ag

us

on

are

o

0

5

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

5

0

On

tho

ph

ag

us

pu

bre

sas

0

5

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

5

0

33

Site

Number of Species

Identified

Primary- Undisturbed

Ficus 6

Upper Bloop 11

Inca 2

Upper Frontier 10

Ficus (road) 8

Mean number of Species 7.4

Secondary –Disturbed

Ridge 9

Buena Vista 7

Buena Vista 5

Cacao Grove 6

Mean number of Species 6.75

Figure 6.1.5 Comparison of habitat to species richness

Habitat Specificity and Assemblage Similarity

Early results of this study offer an interesting comparison with the effects of primary -

undisturbed forest and disturbed – secondary forests on Neotropical dung beetle assemblages.

In contrast to what was predicted, primary – undisturbed rainforest and secondary – disturbed

rainforest habitats are representing large zones of mixing or gradation of dung beetle

assemblages, unlike the assumption of an abrupt assemblage turnover between habitats.

When averaging the total number of species captured in each habitat, the primary - undisturbed

habitat held 7.4 identifiable species while the secondary - more disturbed habitat averaged at

6.75 identifiable species per location. There appears to be little difference between species

richness when comparing the two habitats. However, there are differences in species richness

in trapping stations within the same habitat type (refer to Figure 6.1.5).

Habitat crossover in the associated beetle fauna may suggest that most dung beetles in the

community not completely habitat specialists and possibly host specialists. Local variation in

34

abiotic factors such as soil texture, moisture, and forest structure do influence the occurrence

and relative abundance of scarabaeines (Howden & Nealis 1975, 1978; Halffter & Edmonds

1982); however thus far data suggests the former. It is understood that conclusions are

qualitative due to missing data and the problem of identifying beetles to species level. Owing to

problems identifying dung beetles down to the species level, this project will now be post-poned

until further field guides become available.

7 Community Development Projects

7.1 Colegio Técnico Yachana (Yachana Technical High School)

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

from the Yachana Technical High School joined the expedition for a period of five weeks each.

They participated in all aspects of the expedition, including survey work, camp duty and satellite

camps. Conversation sessions for language exchange were also arranged between the

students and GVI volunteers and/or staff. The students are of great assistance during field work,

sharing their knowledge about local uses for plants as well as helping with the scheduled project

work. They share their culture with volunteers and allow a greater insight into their background,

teaching traditional basket-weaving, traditional achiote-painting. The benefits to the students

are large, as they learn about the realities of conserving and managing a reserve first-hand,

along with the techniques used for monitoring different speices. They also get to practise and

improve their conversational English language skills for an extended period of time, during the

field work, but also around base camp. This sort of shared practical learning experience is

invaluable in the developing world and those students who have the opportunity and interest to

join GVI for a period of time (whether it be two weeks of longer periods), make great progress in

their English language as well as having the opportunity to experience inter-cultural exchange

with native English speakers from different parts of the globe. It is hoped that these exchanges

will continue in the future as they are beneficial to GVI volunteers, staff and of course to the

students themselves.

7.2 TEFL at Puerto Rico

Fifteen English classes were given at Puero Rico this phase. This resulted in 60 ‘volunteer

hours’ of teaching, to 22 older students (7-13 years old) and 14 younger students (4-7 years

old). The next expedition will see the continuation of these lessons, augamneted by an

occasional tropical ecology class given at the end of each five weeks. The English lessons and

35

interaction with the Puerto Rico community has had the long term aim of developing and

encorporating environmental education for the children at the school. This part of the interaction

will begin in Phase 102, but due to the level of understanding of English, this part of the

teaching will need to be presented in Spanish.

7.3 English Classes at Puerto Salazar

Two informal English classes were given at Puerto Salazar on Saturday afternoons. The

feedback from both the children and the volunteers was fantastic. We hope to continue and

expand on these classes in the future, however are somewhat tied to time and resources given

that Puerto Salazar is approximately 45 minutes walk away from GVI base camp in the Yachana

Reserve. GVI is aiming to support the communities around the reserve as much as possible,

but also very aware of the limitations due to fluctuations in numbers of volunteers and therefore

do not want to over-commit to programmes with the communities when there are high numbers

of volunteers on base, to then find that if the numbers drop GVI is unable to maintain the local

commitments. For this reason the work with Puerto Salazar will continue on the occasions

when it is convenient to both the local community and the GVI Amazon schedule, with a view to

continuing the work in the future.

8 Future Expedition Aims

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

expanding the survey areas within the reserve.

� Avian research will continue, focusing on mist netting.

� Herpetological research will continue, repeating pitfall trapping and visual encounter

surveys, and incorporating the collection of environmental data (temperature, humidity, air

flow and light levels) at each of the surveying sites, so that specific climatic conditions can

be compared.

� The butterfly project will continue, examining the effects of road and trail disturbance upon

fruit feeding species, in relation to changes in vegetation.

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

� TEFL at Puerto Rico will continue with a defined focus for each ten week block, for each age

group and the aim is to encourage students to put their learning into practise and get them

conversing in English.

� Simple environmental lesson will begin at the school in Puerto Rico (to be given in Spanish).

36

� An expansion of teaching will branch out with weekend lessons at the local community

called of Puerto Salazar. These lessons will be the basis for a future opportunity of more

structured teaching times within this community.

9 References

9.1 General References

Allen, T., Ginkbeiner, S.L., and Johnson, D.H., 2004. Comparison of detection rates of breeding

marsh birds in passive and playback surveys at Lacreek National Wildlife refuge, South Dakota.

Waterbirds 27, 277-281.

Bennett, A. F., 1991. Roads, roadsides and wildlife conservation: A review. In: Saunders, D. A.,

Hobbs, R. J. (eds.). Nature Conservation 2: The role of corridors. Chipping Norton, NSW,

Australia: Surrey Beatty 99-118.

Daszak, P., Berger, L., Cunningham, A.A., Hyatt, A.D., Green, D.E., Speare. R., 1999.

Emerging infectious diseases and amphibian population declines. Emerging Infectious

Diseases. 5, 735-48.

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

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.

37

Lacher, T., 2004. Tropical Ecology, Assessment, and Monitoring (TEAM) Initiative: Avian

Monitoring Protocol version 3. Conservation International, Washington, DC.

www.teaminitiative.org.

Menendez-Guerrero P.A., Ron S.R. and Graham C.H., 2006. Predicting the Distribution and

Spread of Pathogens to Amphibians. Amphibian Conservation 11:127-128.

Ridgely, R.S., Greenfield, P.J., 2001. The birds of Ecuador. Volume I. Status, Distribution, and

Taxonomy. Cornell University Press, New York.

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

Cambridge.

Weldon, C., du Preez, L.H., Hyatt, A.D., Muller, R., Speare, R., 2004. Origin of the amphibian

chytrid fungus. Emerging Infectious Diseases. 10 (Issue 12).

9.2 Field Use References

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

University Press of Florida, Gainsville.

Bollino, M., Onore G., 2001. Butterflies & moths of Ecuador. Volume 10a. Familia: Papilionidae.

Pontificia Universidad Católica del Ecuador, Quito.

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

EcoCiencia, Quito.

Carrillo, E., Aldás, S., Altamirano, M., Ayala, F., Cisneros, D. Endara, A., Márquez, C., Morales,

M., Nogales, F, Salvador, P., Torres, M.L., Valencia, J., Villamarín, F., Yánez, M., Zárate, P.,

2005. Lista roja de los reptiles del Ecuador. Novum Milenium, Quito.

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

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

Riodinidae. Princeton University Press, Princeton.

38

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

University of Kansas, Lawrence.

Eisenberg, J.F., Redford, K.H., 1999. Mammals of the Neotropics: The central Neotropics.

Volume 3 Ecuador, Peru, Bolivia, Brazil. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

Emmons, L.H., Feer, F., 1997. Neotropical rainforest mammals. A field guide, second edition.

The University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

Moreno E., M., Silva del P., X., Estévez J., G., Marggraff, I., Marggraff, P., 1997. Mariposas del

Ecuador. Occidental Exploration and Production Company, Quito.

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

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

taxonomy. Christopher Helm, London.

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

Helm, London.

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

9.3 Dung Beetle References

Aizen, M. A. & Feinsinger, P. (1994). Forest fragmentation, pollination and plant reproduction in

Chago dry forest, Argentina. Ecology 75: 330-351.

Andresen, E. (1999). Seed dispersal by monkeys and the fate of dispersed seeds in the

Peruvian rain forest. Biotropica 31: 145-158.

Diamond, J. M. (1975). The island dilemma: lessons of modern biogeographic studies for the

design of natural reserves. Biological Conservation 7: 129-146.

39

Estradsa, A., Coates-Estrada, R., Dadda, A. A. & Cammarano, P. (1998). Dung and carrion

beetles in tropical rainforest fragments and agricultural habitats at Los Tuxtlas, Mexico. Journal

of Tropical Ecology 14: 577-593.

Hanski, I., Pakkala, T., Kuussaari, M. & Lei, G. (1995). Metapopulation persistence of an

endangered butterfly in a fragmented landscape. Oikos 72: 21-28.

Larsen, T. H. and Forsyth, A. (2005). Trap spacing and transect design for dung beetle

biodiversity studies. Biotropica 37: 322-325.

Mittal, I. C. (1993). Natural manuring and soil conditioning by dung beetles. Tropical Ecology 34:

150-159.

Saunders, D. A., Hobbs, R. J. & Margules, C. R. (1991). Biological consequences of ecosystem

fragmentation: a review. Conservation biology 5: 18-32.

Skole, D. L. & Tucker, C. (1994). Tropical deforestation and habitat loss fragmentation in the

Amazon: satellite data from 1978-1988. Science 260: 1905–1910.

Spector, S. & Forsyth, A. B. (1998). Indicator taxa for biodiversity assessment in the vanishing

tropics. Conservation Biology Series 1: 181-209.

9.4 Amphibian References

J. Barlow, T. A. Gardner, I. S. Araujo, T. C. Avila-Pires, A. B. Bonaldo, J. E. Costa, M. C.

Esposito, L. V. Ferreira, J. Hawes, M. I. M. Hernandez, M. S. Hoogmoed, R. N. Leite, N. F. 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.

40

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.

41

S.V. Krishnamurthy (2003) Amphibian assemblages in undisturbed and disturbed areas of

Kudremukh National Park, central Western Ghats, India Environmental Conservation 30 (3):

274–282

P. B. Pearman (1997) Correlates of Amphibian Diversity in an Altered Landscape of Amazonian

Ecuador Conservation Biology, Volume 11, No. 5 Pages 1211–1225

R. Pardini, D. Faria, G. M. Accacio, R. R. Laps, E. Mariano-Neto,

M. L.B. Paciencia, M. Dixo, Julio Baumgarten (2009) The challenge of maintaining Atlantic

forest biodiversity: A multi-taxa conservation assessment of specialist and generalist species in

an agro-forestry mosaic in southern Bahia Biological Conservation 142; 1170-1182

M. Rödel & R. Ernst (2004) MEASURING AND MONITORING AMPHIBIAN DIVERSITY IN

TROPICAL FORESTS. I. AN EVALUATION OF METHODS WITH RECOMMENDATIONS FOR

STANDARDIZATION Ecotropica 10: 1–14,

Sala, O.E., Chapin, F.S.I., Armesto, J.J., Berlow, E., Bloomfield, J., Dirzo, R., Huber-Sanwald,

E., Huenneke, L.F., Jackson, R.B., Kinzig, A., Leemans, R., Lodge, D.M., Mooney, H.A.,

Oesterheld, M., Poff, N.L., Sykes, M.T., Walker, B.H., Walker, M., Wall, D.H., (2000). Global

biodiversity scenarios for the year 2100. Science 287, 1770–1774.

Stuart, S.N., Chanson, J.S., Cox, N.A., Young, B.E., Rodrigues, A.S.L., Fischman, D.L. and

Waller, R.W. (2004). Status and trends of amphibians declines and extinctions worldwide.

Science 306: 1783-1786.

J. N. Urbina-Cardona, M. Olivares-Pe´rez, V. H. Reynoso (2006) Herpetofauna diversity and

microenvironment correlates across a pasture–edge–interior ecotone in tropical rainforest

fragments in the Los Tuxtlas Biosphere Reserve of Veracruz, Mexico Biological Conservation

132; 61–75

J. N. Urbina-Cardona (2008) Conservation of Neotropical Herpetofauna: Research Trends and

Challenges Tropical Conservation Science Vol.1(4):359-375

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

42

Whitfield SM, Pierce MSF (2005) Tree buttress microhabitat use by a neotropical leaf-litter

herpetofauna. Journal of Herpetology 39:192-198.

Whitfield SM, Bell KE, Philippi T, Sasa M, Bolanos F, Chaves G, Savage JM, DonnellyMA

(2007) Amphibian and reptile declines over 35 years at La Selva, Costa Rica Proc Natl Acad Sci

104:8352–8356.

Young, B.E., Stuart, S.N., Chanson, J.S., Cox, N.A., Boucher, T.M., 2004. Disappearing Jewels:

The Status of New World Amphibians. Natureserve, Arlington, VA.

9.5 Butterfly References

Bennett, A. F., 1991. Roads, roadsides and wildlife conservation: A review. In: Saunders, D. A.,

Hobbs, R. J. (eds.). Nature Conservation 2: The role of corridors. Chipping Norton, NSW,

Australia: Surrey Beatty pp. 99-118.

Cottam, G., Curtis, J.T., 1956. The use of distance measures in phytosociological sampling.

Ecology 37: 451-460.

DeVries, P. J., Walla, T. R., 1999. Species diversity in spatial and temporal dimensions of 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.

43

10 Appendix A - GVI Species List

January 2010

** New additions to the Yachana

Species List in Phase 101

10.1 Class Aves

Tinamiformes

Tinamidae Tinamous

Crypturellus bartletti Bartlett's Tinamou

Crypturellus cinereus Cinereous Tinamou

Crypturellus soui Little Tinamou

Crypturellus undulatus Undulated Tinamou

Crypturellus variegatus Variegated Tinamou

Tinamus major Great Tinamou

Ciconiformes

Ardeidae Herons, Bitterns and Egrets

Ardea cocoi Cocoi Heron

Bubulcus ibis Cattle Egret

Butorides striatus Striated Heron

Egretta caerulea Little Blue Heron

Egretta thula Snowy Egret

Tigrisoma lineatum Rufescent Tiger-Heron

Cathartidae American Vultures

Cathartes aura Turkey Vulture

Cathartes melambrotus Greater Yellow-headed Vulture

Coragyps atractus Black Vulture

Sarcoramphus papa King Vulture

Falconiformes

Accipitridae Kites, Eagles, Hawks etc

**Spizaetus ornatus **Ornate Hawk-eagle

Buteo magnirostris Roadside Hawk

Buteo polyosoma Variable Hawk

Elanoides forficatus Swallow-tailed Kite

Harpagus bidentatus Double-toothed Kite

Ictinia plumbea Plumbeous Kite

Leptodon cayanensis Gray-headed Kite

Leucopternis melanops Black-faced Hawk

Leucopternis albicollis White Hawk

Pandion haliaetus Osprey

Falconidae Falcons and Caracaras

Daptrius ater Black Caracara

Falco rufigularis Bat Falcon

Ibycter americanus Red-throated Caracara

Herpetotheres cachinnans Laughing Falcon

Micrastur gilvicollis Lined Forest-Falcon

Micrastur semitorquatus Collared Forest-Falcon

Milvago chimachima Yellow-headed Caracara

Galliformes

Cracidae Curassows, Guans, and Chachalacas

Nothocrax urumutum Nocturnal Curassow

Ortalis guttata Speckled Chachalaca

Penelope jacquacu Spix's Guan

Odontophoridae New World Quails

Odontophorus gujanensis Marbled Wood-Quail

Charadriiformes

Scolopacidae Sandpipers, Snipes and Phalaropes

Actitis macularia Spotted Sandpiper

Tringa solitaria Solitary Sandpiper

Recurvirostridae Plovers and Lapwings

Hoploxypterus cayanus Pied Plover

Gruiformes

Rallidae Rails, Gallinules, and Coots

Anurolimnatus castaneiceps Chestnut-headed Crake

Aramides cajanea Gray-necked Wood-Rail

Columbiformes

Columbidae Pigeons and Doves

Claravis pretiosa Blue Ground-Dove

Columba plumbea Plumbeous Pigeon

Geotrygon montana Ruddy Quail-Dove

Leptotila rufaxilla Gray-fronted Dove

Psittaciformes

Psittacidae Parrots and Macaws

Amazona farinosa Mealy Amazon

Amazona ochrocephala Yellow-crowned Amazon

Ara severa Chestnut-fronted Macaw

Psittacidae Cont. Parrots and Macaws

Aratinga leucophthalmus White-eyed Parakeet

44

Aratinga weddellii Dusky-headed Parakeet

Pionites melanocephala Black-headed Parrot

Pionopsitta barrabandi Orange-cheeked Parrot

Pionus menstruus Blue-headed Parrot

Pionus chalcopterus Bronze-winged Parrot

Pyrrhura melanura Maroon-tailed Parakeet

Cuculiformes

Cuculidae Cuckoos and Anis

Crotophaga ani Smooth-billed Ani

Crotophaga major Greater Ani

Piaya cayana Squirrel Cockoo

Piaya melanogaster Black-bellied Cuckoo

Opisthocomidae Hoatzin

Opisthocomus hoazin Hoatzin

Strigiformes

Strigidae Typical Owls

Glaucidium brasilianum Ferruginous Pygmy-Owl

Lophostrix cristata Crested owl

Otus choliba Tropical Screech-Owl

Otus watsonii Tawny-bellied Screech-owl

Pulsatrix perspicillata Spectacled owl

Caprimulgiformes

Nyctibiidae Potoos

Nyctibius aethereus Long-tailed Potoo

Nyctibius grandis Great Potoo

Nyctibius griseus Common Potoo

Caprimulgidae Nightjars and Nighthawks

Nyctidromus albicollis Pauraque

Nyctiphrynus ocellatus Ocellated Poorwill

Apodiformes

Apodidae Swifts

Chaetura cinereiventris Grey-rumped Swift

Streptoprocne zonaris White-collared Swift

Piciformes

Galibulidae Jacamars

Jacamerops aureus Great Jacamar

Galbula albirostris Yellow-billed Jacamar

Bucconidae Puffbirds

Chelidoptera tenebrosa Swallow-winged Puffbird

Bucco macrodactylus Chestnut-capped Puffbird

Malacoptila fusca White-chested Puffbird

Monasa flavirostris Yellow-billed Nunbird

Monasa morphoeus White-fronted Nunbird

Monasa nigrifrons Black-fronted Nunbird

Notharchus macrorynchos White-necked Puffbird

Capitonidae New World Barbets

Capita aurovirens Scarlet-crowned Barbet

Capita auratus Gilded Barbet

Eubucco bourcierii Lemon-throated Barbet

Ramphastidae Toucans

Pteroglossus azara Ivory-billed Aracari

Pteroglossus castanotis Chestnut-eared Aracari

Pteroglossus inscriptus Lettered Aracari

Pteroglossus pluricinctus Many-banded Aracari

Ramphastos vitellinus Channel-billed Toucan

Ramphastos tucanus White-throated Toucan

Selenidera reinwardtii Golden-collared Toucanet

Picidae Woodpeckers and Piculets

Campephilus melanoleucos Crimson-crested Woodpecker

Campephilus rubricollis Red-necked Woodpecker

Celeus elegans Chestnut Woodpecker

Celeus flavus Cream-coloured Woodpecker

Celeus grammicus Scale-breasted Woodpecker

Chrysoptilus punctigula Spot-breasted Woodpecker

Dryocopus lineatus Lineated Woodpecker

Melanerpes cruentatus Yellow-tufted Woodpecker

Picumnus lafresnayi Lafresnaye's piculet

Veniliornis fumigates Smoky-brown Woodpecker

Veniliornis passerines Little Woodpecker Trochilidae Hummingbirds

Amazilia franciae cyanocollis Andean Emerald Hummingbird

Amazilia fimbriata Glittering-throated Emerald

Anthracothorax nigricollis Black-throated Mango

Campylopterus largipennis Gray-breasted Sabrewing

Campylopterus villaviscensio Napo Sabrewing

Eriocnemis vestitus Glowing Puffleg

Eutoxeres condamini Buff-tailed Sicklebill

Glaucis hirsute Rufous -breasted Hermit

Heliothryx aurita Black-eared Fairy

Heliodoxa aurescens Gould's Jewelfront

45

Phaethornis bourcieri Straight-billed Hermit

Phaethornis hispidus White-bearded Hermit

Phaethornis malaris Great-billed Hermit

Thalurania furcata Fork-tailed Woodnymph

Trogoniformes

Trogonidae Trogons and Quetzals

Pharomachrus pavoninus Pavonine Quetzal

Trogon melanurus Black-tailed Trogon

Trogon viridis Amazonian White-tailed Trogon

Trogon collaris Collared Trogon

Trogon rufus Black-throated Trogon

Trogon violaceus Amazonian Violaceous Trogon

Trogon curucui Blue-crowned Trogon

Coraciiformes

Alcedinidae Kingfishers

Chloroceryle amazona Amazon Kingfisher

Chloroceryle americana Green Kingfisher

Chloroceryle inda Green and Rufous Kingfisher

Megaceryle torquata Ringed Kingfisher

Momotidae Motmots

Baryphthengus martii Rufous Motmot

Electron platyrhynchum Broad-billed Motmot

Momotus momota Blue-crowned Motmot

Cotingidae Cotinga

Ampelioides tschudii Scaled Fruiteater

Cotinga cayana Spangled Cotinga

Cotinga maynana Plum-throated Cotinga

Gynnoderus foetidus Bare-necked Fruitcrow

Iodopleura isabellae White-browed Purpletuft

Querula purpurata Purple throated Fruitcrow

Pipridae Manakins

Chiroxiphia pareola Blue-backed Manakin

Chloropipo holochlora Green Manakin

Dixiphia pipra White-crowned Manakin

Lepidothrix coronata Blue-crowned Manakin

Machaeropterus regulus Striped Manakin

Manacus manacus White-bearded Manakin

Pipra erythrocephala Golden-headed Manakin

Tyranneutes stolzmanni Dwarf Tyrant Manakin

Corvidae Crows, Jays, and Magpies

Cyanocorax violaceus Violaceous Jay

Vireonidae Vireos

Vireo olivaceus Red-eyed Vireo

Turdidae Thrushes

Catharus ustulatus Swainson's Thrush

Turdus albicollis White-necked Thrush

Turdus lawrencii Lawrence's Thrush

Hirundinidae Swallows and Martins

Atticora fasciata White-banded Swallow

Stelgidopteryx ruficollis Southern rough-winged swallow

Tachycineta albiventer White-winged Swallow

Troglodytidae Wrens

Campylorhynchus turdinus Thrush-like Wren

Donacobius atricapillus Black-capped Donacobius

Henicorhina leucosticta White-breasted Wood-wren

Microcerculus marginatus Southern Nightingale-Wren

Thryothorus coraya Coraya Wren

Polioptilidae Gnatcatchers and Gnatwrens

Microbates cinereiventris Tawny-faced Gnatwren

Parulidae New World Warblers

Dendroica aestiva Yellow Warbler

Basileuterus fulvicauda Buff-rumped Warbler

Dendroica fusca Blackburnian Warbler

Dendroica striata Blackpoll Warbler Thraupidae Tanagers

Chlorophanes spiza Green Honeycreeper

Cissopis leveriana Magpie Tanager

Creugops verticalis Rufous-crested Tanager

Cyanerpes caeruleus Purple Honeycreeper

Dacnis flaviventer Yellow-bellied Dacnis

Euphonia laniirostris Thick-billed Euphonia

Euphonia rufiventris Rufous-bellied Euphonia

Euponia xanthogaster Orange-bellied Euphonia

Euphonia chrysopasta White-lored Euphonia

Habia rubica Red-crowned Ant-Tanager

Hemithraupis flavicollis Yellow-backed Tanager

Piranaga olivacea Scarlet Tanager

Piranaga rubra Summer Tanager

Ramphocelus carbo Silver-beaked Tanager

46

Ramphocelus nigrogularis Masked Crimson Tanager

Tachyphonus cristatus Flame-crested Tanager

Tachyphonus surinamus Fulvous-crested Tanager

Tangara callophrys Opal-crowned Tanager

Tangara chilensis Paradise Tanager

Tangara mexicana Turquoise Tanager

Tangara schrankii Green-and-gold Tanager

Tangara xanthogastra Yellow-bellied Tanager

Tersina viridis Swallow Tanager

Thraupis episcopus Blue-gray Tanager

Thraupis palmarum Palm Tanager

Cardinalidae Saltators, Grosbeaks etc

Cyanocompsa cyanoides Blue-black Grosbeak

Saltator grossus Slate-colored Grosbeak

Saltator maximus Buff-throated Saltator

Emberizidae Emberizine Finches

Ammodramus aurifrons Yellow-browed Sparrow

Oryzoborus angloensis Lesser Seed-Finch

Fringillidae Cardueline Finches

Carduelis psaltria Lesser Goldfinch

Icteridae American Orioles, and Blackbirds

Cacicus cela Yellow-rumped Cacique

Cacicus solitarius Solitary Cacique

Clypicterus oseryi Casqued Oropendola

Gymnomystax mexicanus Oriole Blackbird

Icterus croconotus Orange-backed Troupial

Molothrus oryzivorous Giant Cowbird

Psarocolius angustifrons Russet-backed Oropendola

Psarocolius decumanas Crested Oropendola

Psarocolius viridis Green Oropendola

10.2 Class

Mammalia

Marsupialia

Didelphidae Opossums

Caluromys lanatus Western woolly opposum

Chironectes minimus Water opossum

Didelphis marsupialis Common opossum

Marmosa lepida Little rufous mouse opossum

Micoureus demerarae Long-furred woolly mouse opossum

Philander sp. Four-eyed opossum

Xenarthra

Megalonychidae

Subfamily Choloepinae Two-toed sloths

Choloepus diadactylus Southern two-toed sloth

Dasypodidae Armadillos

Cabassous unicinctus Southern naked-tailed armadillo

Dasypus novemcinctus Nine-banded armadillo

Chiroptera

Carollinae Short-tailed Fruit bats

Carollia brevicauda

Carollia castanea

Carollia perspicullatus Short-tailed fruit bat

Rhinophylla pumilio Little fruit bat

Desmodontinae Vampire bats

Desmodus rotundus Common vampire bat

Emballonuridae Sac-winged/Sheath-tailed Bats

Saccopteryx bilineata White-lined bat

Glossophaginae Long tongued bats

Glossophaga soricina Long tongued bat

Lonchophylla robusta Spear-nosed long-tongued bat

Stenodermatidae Neotropical Fruit bats

Artibeus jamaicensis Large fruit-eating bat

Artibeus lituratus Large fruit bat

Artibeus obscurus Large fruit bat

Artibeus planirostus Large fruit bat

Chiroderma villosum Big-eyed bat

Sturrnia lilium Hairy-legged bat

Sturnria oporaphilum Yellow shouldered fruit bat

Uroderma pilobatum Tent-making bat

Vampyrodes caraccioli Great Stripe-faced bat

Phyllostominae Spear-nosed Bats

Macrophyllum macrophyllum Long-legged bat

Mimon crenulatum Hairy-nosed bat

Phyllostomus hastatus Spear-nosed bat

Vespertilionidae Vespertilionid Bats

Myotis nigricans Little brown bat

47

Primates Monkeys

Callitrichidae

Saguinus nigricollis Black-mantle tamarin

Cebidae

Allouatta seniculus Red howler monkey

Aotus sp. Night monkey

Cebus albifrons White-fronted capuchin

Carnivora Carnivores

Procyonidae Raccoon

Nasua nasua South american coati

Potos flavus Kinkajou

Mustelidae Weasel

Eira Barbara Tayra

Lontra longicaudis Neotropical otter

Felidae Cat

Herpailurus yaguarundi Jaguarundi

Leopardus pardalis Ocelot

Puma concolor Puma

Artidactyla Peccaries and Deer

Mazama Americana Red brocket deer

Tayassu tajacu Collared peccary

Rodentia Rodents

Echimyidae

Dactylomys dactylinus Amazon bamboo rat

Nectomys squamipes Water rat

Proechimys semispinosus Spiny rat

Sciuridae Squirrels

Sciurus sp. Amazon red squirrel

Sciurillus pusillus Neotropical pygmy squirrel

Large Cavylike Rodents

Agouti paca Paca

Coendou bicolour Bi-color spined porcupine

Dasyprocta fuliginosa Black agouti

Hydrochaeirs hydrochaeirs Capybara

Myoprocta pratti Green acouchy

10.3 Class

Sauropsida

Lizards

Gekkonidae

Gonatodes concinnatus Collared forest gecko

Gonatodes humeralis Bridled forest gecko

Pseudogonatodes guianensis Amazon pygmy gecko

Gymnophthalmidae

Alopoglossus striventris Black-bellied forest lizard

Arthrosaura reticulata reticulata Reticulated creek lizard

Cercosaurra argulus

Cercosaura ocellata

Leposoma parietale Common forest lizard

Neusticurus ecpleopus Common streamside lizard

Prionodactylus argulus Elegant-eyed lizard

Prionodactylus oshaughnessyi White-striped eyed lizard

Iguanas

Hoplocercidae

Enyalioides laticeps Amazon forest dragon

Polychrotidae

Anolis fuscoauratus Slender anole

Anolis nitens scypheus Yellow-tongued forest anole

Anolis ortonii Amazon bark anole

Anolis punctata Amazon green anole

Anolis trachyderma Common forest anole

Scincidae

Mabuya nigropunctata Black-spotted skink

Tropiduridae

Tropidurus (Plica) plica Collared tree runner Tropidurus (plica) umbra ochrocollaris Olive tree runner

Teiidae

Kentropyx pelviceps Forest whiptail

Tupinambis teguixin Golden tegu

Snakes

Colubridae

Atractus elaps Earth snake sp3

Atractus major Earth snake

48

Atractus occiptoalbus Earth snake sp2

Chironius fuscus Olive whipsnake

Chironius scurruls Rusty whipsnake

Clelia clelia clelia Musarana

Dendriphidion dendrophis Tawny forest racer

Dipsas catesbyi Ornate snail-eating snake

Dipsas indica Big-headed snail-eating snake

Drepanoides anomalus Amazon egg-eating snake

Drymoluber dichrous Common glossy racer

Helicops angulatus Banded south american water snake

Helicops leopardinus Spotted water snake

Imantodes cenchoa Common blunt-headed tree snake

Imantodes lentiferus Amazon blunt-headed tree snake

Leptodeira annulata annulata Common cat-eyed snake

Leptophis cupreus Brown parrot snake

Liophis miliaris chrysostomus White-lipped swamp snake

Liophis reginae Common swamp snake

Oxyrhopus formosus Yellow-headed calico snake

Oxyrhopus melanogenys Black-headed calico snake

Oxyrhopus petola digitalus Banded calico snake

Pseustes poecilonotus polylepis Common bird snake

Pseustes sulphureus Giant bird snake

Sphlophus compressus Red-vine snake

Spilotes pullatus Tiger rat snake Tantilla melanocephala melanocephala Black-headed snake

Xenedon rabdocephalus Common false viper

Xenedon severos Giant false viper

Xenoxybelis argenteus Green-striped vine snake

Viperidae

Bothriopsis taeniata Speckeled forest pit viper

Bothriopsis bilineata bilineata Western Striped Forest Pit Viper

Bothrops atrox Fer-de-lance

**Bothrops hyoprora **Amazonian Hog-Nosed Viper

Lachesis muta muta Amazon Bushmaster

Boidae

Boa constrictor constrictor Red-tailed boa

Boa constrictor imperator Common boa constrictor

Corallus enydris enydris Amazon tree boa

Epicrates cenchria gaigei Peruvian rainbow boa

Elapidae

Micurus hemprichii ortonii Orange-ringed coral snake

Micrurus langsdorfii Langsdorffs coral snake

Micrurus lemniscatus Eastern ribbon coral snake

Micrurus spixii spixxi Central amazon coral snake

Micurus surinamensis surinamensis Aquatic coral snake

Crocodilians

Alligatoridae

Paleosuchus trigonatus Smooth-fronted caiman

10.4 Class

Amphibia

Caecilians

Typhlonectidae

Caecilia aff. tentaculata

Plethodontidae Lungless Salamanders

Bolitoglossa peruviana Dwarf climbing salamander

Bufonidae Toads

Rhinella marina Cane Toad

Rhinella complex margaritifer Crested Forest Toad

Rhinella dapsilis Sharp-nosed Toad

Dendrophryniscus Leaf Toads

Dendrophryniscus minutus Orange bellied leaf toad

Centrolenidae Glass Frogs

Centrolene sp. undescribed Glass Frog

Cochranella anetarsia Glass Frog

Cochranella midas Glass Frog

Cochranella resplendens Glass Frog

Dendrobatidae Poison Frogs

Ameerega bilinguis

Ameerega ingeri Ruby Poison Frog

Ameerega insperatus

Ameerega parvulus

Ameerega zaparo Sanguine Poison Frog

Colostethus bocagei

Colostethus marchesianus Ucayali Rocket Frog

Dendrobates duellmani Duellmans Poison Frog

Hylidae Tree Frogs

Cruziohyla craspedopus Amazon Leaf Frog

cf. Sphaenorhychus carneus Pygmy hatchet-faced Tree Frog

Dendropsophus bifurcus Upper Amazon Tree Frog

49

**Dendropsophus marmorata **Neotropical Marbled Tree Frog

Dendropsophus rhodopeplus Red Striped Tree Frog

Dendropsophus triangulium Variable Clown Tree Frog

Hemiphractus aff. scutatus Casque-headed Tree Frog

Hyla lanciformis Rocket Tree Frog

Hyla maomaratus

Hylomantis buckleyi

Hylomantis hulli

Hypsiboas boans Gladiator Tree Frog

Hypsiboas calcarata Convict Tree Frog

Hypsiboas geographica Map Tree Frog

Hypsiboas punctatus Common Polkadot Tree Frog

Hypsiboas geographica Map Tree Frog

Hypsiboas punctatus Common Polkadot Tree Frog

Osteocephalus cabrerai complex Forest bromeliad Tree Frog

Osteocephalus cf. deridens

Osteocephalus leprieurii Common bromeliad Tree Frog

Osteocephalus planiceps Flat-headed bromeliad Tree Frog

Trachycephalus resinifictrix Amazonian Milk Tree Frog

Phyllomedusa tarsius Warty Monkey Frog

Phyllomedusa tomopterna Barred Monkey Frog

Phyllomedusa vaillanti White-lined monkey Tree Frog

Scinax garbei Fringe lipped Tree Frog

Scinax rubra Two-striped Tree Frog

Trachycephalus venulosus Common milk Tree Frog

Microhylidae Sheep Frogs

Chiasmocleis bassleri Bassler's Sheep Frog

Leptodactylidae Rain Frogs

Edalorhina perezi Eyelashed Forest Frog

Prystimantis acuminatus Green Rain Frog

Prystimantis aff peruvianus Peruvian Rain Frog

Prystimantis altamazonicus Amazonian Rain Frog

Prystimantis conspicillatus Chirping Robber Frog

Prystimantis lanthanites Striped-throated Rain Frog

Prystimantis malkini Malkini's Rain Frog

Prystimantis martiae Marti's rainfrog

Prystimantis ockendeni complex Carabaya Rain Frog

Prystimantis sulcatus Broad-headed Rain Frog

Prystimantis variabilis Variable Rain Frog

Hypnodactylus nigrovittatus Black-banded Robber Frog

Strabomantis sulcatus Broad-headed Rain Frog

Engystomops petersi Painted Forest Toadlet

Leptodactylus andreae Cocha Chirping Frog

Leptodactylus knudseni Rose-sided Jungle Frog

Leptodactylus mystaceus

Leptodactylus rhodomystax Moustached Jungle Frog

Leptodactylus wagneri Wagneris Jungle Frog

Lithodytes lineatus Painted Antnest Frog

Oreobates quixensis Common big headed Rain Frog

Vanzolinius discodactylus Dark-blotched Whistling Frog

Ranidae True Frogs

Rana palmipes Neotropical Green Frog

10.5 Class

Arachnida

Araneae

Nephila clavipes Golden Silk Spider

Ancylometes terrenus Giant Fishing Spider

10.6 Class

Insecta

Coleoptera

Euchroma gigantea Giant Ceiba Borer

Homoeotelus d'orbignyi Pleasing Fungus Beetle

Scarabaeidae

Canthon luteicollis

Deltochilum howdeni

Dichotomius ohausi

Dichotomius prietoi

Eurysternus caribaeus

Eurysternus confusus

Eurysternus foedus

Eurysternus inflexus

Eurysternus plebejus

Grylloptera

Panacanthus cuspidatus Spiny Devil Katydid

Hemiptera

Dysodius lunatus Lunate Flatbug

Lepidoptera

Lycaenidae

Celmia celmus

Janthecla sista

50

Thecla aetolius

Thecla mavors

Colobura annulata

Colobura dirce

Nymphalidae

Apaturinae

Doxocopa agathina

Doxocopa griseldis

Doxocopa laurentia

Doxocopa linda

Biblidinae

Biblis hyperia

Callicore cynosure

Catonephele acontius

Catonephele esite

Catonephele numilia

Diaethria clymena

Dynamine aerate

Dynamine arthemisia

Dynamine athemon

Dynamine gisella

Ectima thecla lerina

Eunica alpais

Eunica amelio

Eunica clytia

Eunica volumna

Hamadryas albicornus

Hamadryas arinome

Hamadryas chloe

Hamadryas feronia

Hamadryas laodamia

Nessaea batesii

Nessaea hewitsoni

Nica flavilla

Panacea prola

Panacea regina

Paulogramma peristera

Phrrhogyra amphiro

Pyrrhogyra crameri

Pyrrhogyra cuparina

Pyrrhogyra cf nasica

Pyrrhogyra otolais

Temenis laothoe

Charaxinae

Agrias claudina

Archaeoprepona amphimachus

Archaeoprepona demophon

Archaeoprepona demophon muson

Archaeoprepona licomedes

Consul fabius

Hypna clytemnestra

Memphis arachne

Memphis oenomaus

Memphis philomena

Memphis offa

Prepona eugenes

Prepona dexamenus

Prepona laertes

Prepona pheridamas

Zaretis isidora

Zaretis itys

Cyrestinae

Marpesia berania

Marpesia crethon

Marpesia petreus

Danainae

Pieridae

Appias drusilla

Dismorphia pinthous

Eurema cf xanthochlora

Perrhybris lorena

Phoebis rurina

Danainae

Danaini

Danaus plexippus

Ithomiini

Aeria eurimidea

Ceratinia tutia

Hypoleria sarepta

Hyposcada anchiala

Hyposcada illinissa

Hypothyris anastasia

Hypothyris fluonia

Ithomia amarilla

Ithomia salapia

Mechanitis lysimnia

51

Mechanitis mazaeus

Mechanitis messenoides

Methona confusa psamathe

Methone Cecilia

Oleria Gunilla

Oleria ilerdina

Oleria tigilla

Tithorea harmonia

Heliconinae

Acraeini

Actinote sp.

Heliconiini

Dryas iulia

Eueides Eunice

Eueides Isabella

Eueides lampeto

Eueides lybia

Heliconius erato

Heliconius hecale

Heliconius melponmene

Heliconius numata

Heliconius sara

Heliconius xanthocles

Heliconius doris

Philaethria dido

Limenitidinae

Adelpha amazona

Adelpha cocala

Adelpha cytherea

Adelpha erotia

Adelpha iphicleola

Adelpha iphiclus

Adelpha lerna

Adelpha melona

Adelpha mesentina

Adelpha naxia

Adelpha panaema

Adelpha phrolseola

Adelpha thoasa

Adelpha viola

Adelpha ximena

Nymphalinae

Anartia amathae

Anartia jatrophae

Baeotus deucalion

Eresia eunice

Eresia pelonia

Historis odius

Historis acheronta

Metamorpha elisa

Metamorpha sulpitia

Phyciodes plagiata

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

Haeterini

Cithaerias aurora

Cithaerias menander

Cithaerias pireta

Haetera macleannania

Haetera piera

Pierella astyoche

Pierella hortona

Pierella lamia

Pierella lena

Pierella lucia

Morphini

Antirrhea hela

Antirrhea philoctetes avernus Common Brown Morpho

Morpho Achilles

Morpho deidamia

52

Morpho helenor

Morpho Menelaus

Morpho peleides

Morpho polycarmes

Satyrini

Caeruleuptychia scopulata

Chloreuptychia agatha

Chloreuptychia herseis

Euptychia binoculata

Euptychia labe

Euptychia myncea

Euptychia renata

Hermeuptychia hermes

Sarota chrysus

Sarota spicata

Setabis gelasine

Stalachtis calliope

Stalachtis phaedusa

Synargis orestessa

Magneuptychia analis

Magneuptychia libye

Magneuptychia ocnus

Magneuptychia ocypete

Magneuptychia tiessa

Pareuptychia hesionides Pareuptychia hesionides

Pareuptychia ocirrhoe

Taygetis Cleopatra Cleopatra Satyr

Taygetis echo Echo Satyr

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

Riodinidae

Amarynthis meneria

Ancyluris endaemon

Ancyluris aulestes

Ancyluris etias

Anteros renaldus

Calospila cilissa

Calospila partholon

Calospila emylius

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

53

11

Ap

pen

dix

B –

GV

I Y

ach

an

a R

eserv

e M

ap