Hand searching versus pitfall trapping: how to assess biodiversity of ground beetles (Coleoptera: Carabidae) in high altitude equatorial Andes?

International audienceThe use of ground beetles (Coleoptera: Carabidae) as bioindicators of environmental change depends on the reliability and the effectiveness of the sampling methods. Those that have been tested in the temperate zone and in tropical forests still await experimentation in tropical high-altitude environments. For the first time, pitfall trapping and hand searching have been compared in Ecuadorian páramo above 4000 m a.s.l., in terms of practical effectiveness. The study was performed on six volcanoes and was based on the comparison of 28 sampling sessions (pitfall trapping and hand searching) performed along two different elevational belts [lower superpáramo (LSP) and upper superpáramo (USP)]. Analyses of sampling sessions showed that detected species richness is slightly higher with hand searching than with pitfall trapping, regardless of the elevation. Additionally, hand searching is more time-effective than pitfall trapping. The performance of the sampling method slightly varies when species assemblage composition is analysed in relation to elevational belts. In the LSP, hand searching and pitfall trapping should be simultaneously used to obtain exhaustive inventories of carabid biodiversity, since different species are likely to be collected by each method. In the USP, hand searching and pitfall trapping efficiency is very similar, but hand searching allows to collect a slightly larger number of species. Lastly, the sample-based rarefaction curves showed that four temporal replicates are mandatory to obtain a robust dataset and an exhaustive inventory of the true species richness and species assemblages composition. Our findings suggest a combined use of hand searching and pitfall trapping in the LSP, while both methods can be used alone for surveying carabids in the USP. Furthermore, hand searching is recommended if the aim is to obtain an inventory of species diversity, whereas pitfall trapping seems more convenient for fine grain ecological and comparative studies

Comparative pollen morphology of the Iberian species of Pulicaria (Asteraceae, Inuleae, Inulinae) and its taxonomic significance

To better understand the taxonomy of Pulicaria, the pollen wall architecture of the six Iberian species were investigated using light (LM) and scanning electron microscopy (SEM). The exine structure of Pulicaria odora was also investigated using transmission electron microscopy (TEM). Statistical analysis was performed to distinguish taxonomically significant morphometric information from all the measured parameters of pollen grains. It was found that the exine sculpture characters, with special importance paid to the spines, were the most useful of all characters to define Pulicaria pollen types and separate the species. Three pollen types distinguishable through the spines morphology and the inter-spinular sculpture are described: P. microcephala pollen type (incl. P. microcephala), P. vulgaris pollen type (incl. P. vulgaris), and P. dysenterica pollen type (incl. P. dysenterica, P. odora, P. paludosa and P. sicula). A dichotomous key to these Pulicaria pollen types is proposed. The distribution of P. dysenterica, P. odora, P. paludosa and P. sicula in more than one leaf node in the classification tree reveals that the pollen grains of these species are difficult to segregate. Therefore, the construction of a satisfactory dichotomous key to the P. dysenterica pollen type species is not feasible. Yet, the different spines apex morphology between P. microcephala and P. paludosa and the existence of significant differences in five of the eight studied quantitative pollen characters of these two taxa, supports the opinion that the Berlengas Islands endemic P. microcephala should be accepted as a separate species. In addition, the differences among the spines morphology of P. vulgaris, P. microcephala, and the other four Iberian (and European) species, strengthen the conclusion that the section Pulicaria is non-monophyletic