Find research datasets worth reusing

opennotspecifiedNov 2011View details →

Figure 2 in Terrestrial macroinvertebrates captured with a baited ramp-pitfall trap from five limestone caves in North Alabama and Georgia (USA) and their association with soil organic matter

Figure 2. Regression of total invertebrate abundance and % total organic matter (% TOM) from the various distance intervals in Anvil Cave, Alabama.

opennotspecifiedNov 2011View details →

Figure 5 in Terrestrial macroinvertebrates captured with a baited ramp-pitfall trap from five limestone caves in North Alabama and Georgia (USA) and their association with soil organic matter

Figure 5. Regression analyses of total invertebrate abundance from the various distance intervals in Howard's Waterfall Cave, Georgia.

Fig. 3 in A Comparison of the Dung Beetle (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae: Scarabaeinae) Collecting Performance of Pitfall Traps and Burrowing Interception Traps

Fig. 3. Species accumulation curves comparing burrowing interception traps (BIT, in black) and pitfall traps (in gray).

Fig. 2 in A Comparison of the Dung Beetle (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae: Scarabaeinae) Collecting Performance of Pitfall Traps and Burrowing Interception Traps

Fig. 2. Mean and standard deviations for different measures of performance by individual burrowing interception traps (BIT) and pitfall traps.

Fig. 1. a in A Comparison of the Dung Beetle (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae: Scarabaeinae) Collecting Performance of Pitfall Traps and Burrowing Interception Traps

Fig. 1. a) Construction diagram of the burrowing interception trap (BIT), b) Completely assembled BIT.

opennotspecifiedDec 2011View details →

Fig. 2 in Collecting Insects Associated with Wetland Vegetation: An Improved Design for a Floating Pitfall Trap

Fig. 2. Trap in situ, approximately 0.5 m deep water with surface covered by aquatic macrophytes and debris.

opennotspecifiedDec 2011View details →

Fig. 1 in Collecting Insects Associated with Wetland Vegetation: An Improved Design for a Floating Pitfall Trap

Fig. 1. Line drawing depicting our design for an improved floating pitfall trap (with gardening stake at left). Lead weights are not depicted in the jar.

dryad32/100

Ant abundance in pitfall traps, subterranean traps, arboreal traps, and Winkler samples at the Territory Wildlife Park experiment

Open the record for dataset details and reuse information.

publicJul 2024View details →

opencc-by-4.0Jan 2010View details →

Figure 1. L in Does your preservative preserve? A comparison of the efficacy of some pitfall trap solutions in preserving the internal reproductive organs of dung beetles

Figure 1. L. militaris (female) after seven days of submergence in brine showing the unpreserved internal organs.

opennotspecifiedSep 2012View details →

Fig. 3. Standard pitfall trap design. A in Efficient New Above-Ground Bucket Traps Produce Comparable Data to that of Standard Transects for the Endangered American Burying Beetle,Nicrophorus AmericanusOlivier (Coleoptera: Silphidae)

Fig. 3. Standard pitfall trap design. A standard transect consisted of eight traps spaced 20 m.

opennotspecifiedDec 2013View details →

Fig. 2 in A Modified Pitfall Trap for Capturing Ground Beetles (Coleoptera: Carabidae)

Fig. 2. The seasonal dynamics of trapping efficiency of traditional and modified pitfall traps.

opencc-by-4.0Apr 2024View details →

Figure 2 in Comparing the effectiveness of pitfall traps and active sampling methods for ants and spiders in a Chromolaena odorata invaded site

Figure 2. Ant species richness collected using active and passive sampling techniques in Buffelsdraai Conservancy [AHC = aerial hand collection above the knee; AHC CRYPTIC = aerial hand collection below the knee cryptic; AHC OBV = aerial hand collection below the knee noticeable or non-cryptic; BB = vegetation beating].

opennotspecifiedMar 2023View details →

Fig. 6 in A Baited Time Sorting Pitfall Trap Allowing More Temporal Fidelity of Dung Beetle (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae) Activity

Fig. 6. Correlation between ground pan trap abundance and TSPT abundance in height experiment 2.

Fig. 4 in A Comparison of the Dung Beetle (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae: Scarabaeinae) Collecting Performance of Pitfall Traps and Burrowing Interception Traps

Fig. 4. Rank abundance curves for burrowing interception traps (BIT) and pitfall traps.

Figure 7 from: Matalin A, Makarov M (2011) Using demographic data to better interpret pitfall trap catches. ZooKeys 100: 223-254. https://doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.100.1530

Figure 7 - Numbers of the 10 most abundantly collected carabid species in reedbeds with regards to migrants (A) and residents only (B). Dominant species are in bold text, combined data for 2006/07; N (ex.) – number of specimens (after Makarov and Matalin 2009).

Figure 6 from: Matalin A, Makarov M (2011) Using demographic data to better interpret pitfall trap catches. ZooKeys 100: 223-254. https://doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.100.1530

Figure 6 - Species diversity and the share of labile/stable components in particular habitats in the Lake Elton region, combined data for 2006/07 (black bars – labile component, white bars – stable component, line – number of species; N (sp.) – number of species).

Figure 4 from: Matalin A, Makarov M (2011) Using demographic data to better interpret pitfall trap catches. ZooKeys 100: 223-254. https://doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.100.1530

Figure 4 - Seasonal dynamics of activity, as well as the age structure of the populations of Harpalus rufipes from reedbeds along the River Khara (A) and Pseudotaphoxenus rufitarsis major from the lakeside salt-marsh (B), in 2006 (see Figure 2 for further explanations).

Figure 3 from: Matalin A, Makarov M (2011) Using demographic data to better interpret pitfall trap catches. ZooKeys 100: 223-254. https://doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.100.1530

Figure 3 - Seasonal dynamics of activity, as well as the age structure of the populations of Calathus ambiguus from grass-forb steppe with Amygdalus nana (A) and Pseudotaphoxenus rufitarsis major from sagebrush-grassland desert steppe on the northern slope of Ulagan Mountain (B), in 2006 (breaks in the periods of activity of immature specimens correspond to the time of aestivation parapause; see Figure 2 for further explanations).

Figure 2 from: Matalin A, Makarov M (2011) Using demographic data to better interpret pitfall trap catches. ZooKeys 100: 223-254. https://doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.100.1530

Figure 2 - Seasonal dynamics of activity, as well as the age structure of the populations of Pogonus transfuga (A) and Brachinus hamatus (B) from reedbeds along the River Khara, combined data for 2006/07 (T – teneral, Im – immature, M – mature, Sp – spent beetles; solid lines below graphs parental generation, dashed lines below graphs – new generation; N (ex.) – number of specimens; 1, 2, 3 – first, second and third ten-day periods per month, respectively).

Figure 1 from: Matalin A, Makarov M (2011) Using demographic data to better interpret pitfall trap catches. ZooKeys 100: 223-254. https://doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.100.1530

Figure 1 - Chronology of changes in periods of activity of individual 'age' groups, characterised by female gonad condition, in 'spring' (A) and 'autumn' (B) breeding carabid beetles (T – teneral, Im – immature, M – mature, Sp – spent beetles).