Comparative performance of pitfall, ramp, and tube traps for sampling arthropods in an arid region of southeastern Iran

Enayatnia, Masoumeh; Mirshekar, Ali; Zamani, Alireza; Ramroodi, Sara

doi:10.48311/jibs.12.02.429

Comparative performance of pitfall, ramp, and tube traps for sampling arthropods in an arid region of southeastern Iran

Articles in Press

Document Type : Research Article

Authors

Masoumeh Enayatnia ¹

Ali Mirshekar ¹

Alireza Zamani ²

Sara Ramroodi ¹

¹ Department of Plant Protection, Faculty of Agriculture, University of Zabol, Zabol 98613-35856, Iran.

² Zoological Museum, Biodiversity Unit, FI-20014 University of Turku, Turku 20500, Finland.

10.48311/jibs.12.02.429

Abstract

Pitfall traps are widely used for collecting ground-dwelling arthropods, with ramp and tube traps serving as complementary options. This study compares the performance of these three trap types in an arid environment in southeastern Iran. Fieldwork was conducted in spring 2025 across three active orchards in the Sistan region. Six replicates of each trap type (18 total) were deployed along three paired transects. Most adult spiders were identified to the species level, while most other arthropods were identified to the family level. A total of 14,960 individuals representing 12 orders and 52 families were collected. Tube traps captured the most specimens (n = 7,706), outperforming the other trap types across the majority of taxonomic groups, including Isopoda, Coleoptera, and Araneae. Pitfall traps yielded intermediate catches (n = 5,343) and performed comparably to tube traps for several groups, such as Gnaphosidae and Formicidae, while capturing more individuals of Opiliones than the other two trap types combined. Ramp traps collected the fewest individuals (n = 1,911) but captured the highest numbers of Pompilidae and Gryllotalpidae, and, together with pitfall traps, collected several spider species that were under-represented or absent in tube trap samples. Overall, tube traps represent a practical option for sampling epigeal arthropods in arid environments. However, to achieve a more comprehensive community sample and reduce methodological bias, a combination of all three trap types is recommended for biodiversity assessments in desert ecosystems.

Graphical Abstract

Comparative performance of pitfall, ramp, and tube traps for sampling arthropods in an arid region of southeastern Iran

Keywords

Ground-dwelling arthropods

Sampling methods

Sistan region

Spiders

Subjects

Biodiversity

Ahmed, D.A., Beidas, A., Petrovskii, S.V., Bailey, J.D., Bonsall, M.B., Hood, A.S., & Haase, P. (2023) Simulating capture efficiency of pitfall traps based on sampling strategy and the movement of ground‐dwelling arthropods. Methods in Ecology and Evolution, 14, 2827–2843. https://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210X.14223

BioRender (2025) BioRender, online platform. Available from: https://www.biorender.com [Accessed January 15, 2026]

Bostanian, N.J., Boivin, G. & Goulet, H. (1983) Ramp pitfall trap. Journal of Economic Entomology, 76, 1473–1475. https://doi.org/10.1093/jee/76.6.1473

Bouchard, P., Wheeler, T.A. & Goulet, H. (2000) Ramp traps for collecting arthropods on the ground surface. The Canadian Entomologist, 132, 649–653. https://doi.org/10.4039/Ent132649-5

Brennan, K.E., Majer, J.D. & Reygaert, N. (1999) Determination of an optimal pitfall trap size for sampling spiders in a Western Australian Jarrah forest. Journal of Insect Conservation, 3, 297–307. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1009682527012

Császár, P., Torma, A., Gallé-Szpisjak, N., Tölgyesi, C. & Gallé, R. (2018) Efficiency of pitfall traps with funnels and/or roofs in capturing ground-dwelling arthropods. European Journal of Entomology, 115, 15–24. https://doi.org/10.14411/eje.2018.003

Gao, M., Sun, J., Jiang, Y., Ye, Y., Zheng, Y., Yan, X. & Li H (2024) A combination of camera and pitfall traps: a method for monitoring ground-dwelling invertebrates in farmlands. Agriculture, 14, 1866. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture14111866

Gibb, T.J. & Oseto, C.Y. (2006) Arthropod Collection and Identification: Field and Laboratory Techniques. Academic Press, Cambridge. 336 pp.

Google Earth (2024) Google Earth (Version 2024). Available from: https://earth.google.com [Accessed October 2024]

Greenslade, P.J.M. (1964) Pitfall trapping as a method for studying populations of Carabidae (Coleoptera). Journal of Animal Ecology, 33, 301–310. https://doi.org/10.2307/2632

Hancock, M.H. & Legg, C.J. (2011) Pitfall trapping bias and arthropod body mass. Insect Conservation and Diversity, 5(4), 312-318. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1752-4598.2011.00162.x

Hohbein, R.R. & Conway, C.J. (2018) Pitfall traps: a review of methods for estimating arthropod abundance. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 42, 597–606. https://doi.org/10.1002/wsb.928

Koivula, M., Kotze, J., Hiisivuori, L. & Rita, H. (2003) Pitfall trap efficiency: do trap size, collecting fluid and vegetation structure matter? Entomologica Fennica, 14, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.33338/ef.84167

Lami, F., Burgio, G., Magagnoli, S., Sommaggio, D., Horváth, R., Nagy, D.D. & Masetti, A. (2023) Ground-dwelling arthropods as biodiversity indicators in maize agroecosystems of Northern Italy. Ecological Indicators, 152, 110352. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2023.110352

Matevski, D., Cvetkovska-Gjorgjievska, A., Prelić, D., Hristovski, S., Naumova, M. & Delltshev, C. (2020a) Efficacy of trapping techniques (pitfall, ramp and arboreal traps) for capturing spiders. Biologia, 75, 2315–2319. https://doi.org/10.2478/s11756-020-00548-1

Matevski, D., Petrov, P. & Lazarov, S. (2020b) Effects of trap structure on the efficiency of pitfall sampling of ground beetles (Coleoptera: Carabidae). Acta Zoologica Bulgarica, 72 (3), 403–411

McNamara Manning, K., Perry, K.I. & Bahlai, C.A. (2021) A novel method for monitoring ground-dwelling arthropods on hard substrates: characterizing arthropod biodiversity among survey methods. BioRxiv, 2021-12. https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.12.06.471448

McNamara Manning, K., Perry, K.I. & Bahlai, C.A. (2025) Variability in arthropod community surveys: observations of ground-dwelling arthropods are dependent on methodological choices. The Great Lakes Entomologist, 58, 9. https://doi.org/10.22543/0090-0222.2478

Medhi, J., Dutta, J., & Kalita, M.C. (2021) Biomonitoring ecosystem: modelling relationship with arthropods. In Ranz, R.E.R. (ed.) Arthropods - Are They Beneficial for Mankind? IntechOpen, London, pp. 113–130. https://doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.94313

Österman, E.M., Hopkins, T. & Zamani, A. (2024) Ramp traps versus pitfall traps for collecting epigeal arthropods: a case study in a coniferous forest in Southwest Finland. Biodiversity, 25, 78–87. https://doi.org/10.1080/14888386.2023.2294795

Patrick, L.B. & Hansen, A. (2013) Comparing ramp and pitfall traps for capturing wandering spiders. Journal of Arachnology, 41, 404–406. https://doi.org/10.1636/Hi12-52.1

Pearce, J.L., Schuurman, D., Barber, K.N., Larrivée, M., Venier, L.A., McKee, J. & McKenney, D. (2005) Pitfall trap designs to maximize invertebrate captures and minimize captures of nontarget vertebrates. The Canadian Entomologist, 137, 233–250. https://doi.org/10.4039/n04-029

R Core Team (2025) R: a language and environment for statistical computing (Version 4.5.1). R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna. https://www.R-project.org/

Rakhshani, E. (2018) Methods for Collection of Insects and Other Terrestrial Arthropods. Minoofar Publication, Tehran. 466 pp. [in Persian]

Saji, A., Al Rashdi, Z.S., Ahmed, S., Soorae, P.S. & Al Dhaheri, S. (2021) Diversity and composition of epigeal arthropods using pitfall trapping method in different habitat types of Abu Dhabi Emirate, UAE. Saudi Journal of Biological Sciences, 28, 3751–3758. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sjbs.2021.04.023

Santos, S.A., Cabanas, J.E. & Pereira, J.A. (2007) Abundance and diversity of soil arthropods in olive grove ecosystem (Portugal): effect of pitfall trap type. European Journal of Soil Biology, 43, 77–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejsobi.2006.10.001

Sereda, E., Blick, T., Dorow, W.H., Wolters, V. & Birkhofer, K. (2014) Assessing spider diversity on the forest floor: expert knowledge beats systematic design. Journal of Arachnology, 42, 44–51. https://doi.org/10.1636/P13-16.1

Siewers, J., Schirmel, J. & Buchholz, S. (2014) The efficiency of pitfall traps as a method of sampling epigeal arthropods in litter rich forest habitats. European Journal of Entomology, 111, 69–74. https://doi.org/10.14411/eje.2014.008

Stašiov, S., Čiliak, M., Wiezik, M., Svitok, M., Wieziková, A. & Diviaková A (2021) Pitfall trap design affects the capture efficiency of harvestmen (Opiliones) and millipedes (Diplopoda). Ecology and Evolution, 11, 9864–9875. https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.7814

Tilles, D.A., Nordlander, G., Nordenhem, H., Eidmann, H.H., Wassgren, A.B. & Bergstrom, G. (1986) Increased release of host volatiles from feeding scars: a major cause of field aggregation in the pine weevil Hylobius abietis (Coleoptera; Curculionidae). Environmental Entomology, 15, 1050–1054. https://doi.org/10.1093/ee/15.5.1050

Topping, C.J., Sunderland, K.D. (1992) Limitations to the use of pitfall traps in ecological studies exemplified by a study of spiders in a field of winter wheat. Journal of Applied Ecology, 29, 485–491. https://doi.org/10.2307/2404516

Wang, Y., Naumann, U., Eddelbuettel, D., Wilshire, J. & Warton, D. (2022) mvabund: statistical methods for analysing multivariate abundance data (Version 4.2.1). https://cran.r-project.org/package=mvabund

Warton, D.I., Thibaut, L. & Wang, Y.A. (2017) The PIT-trap—a “model-free” bootstrap procedure for inference about regression models with discrete, multivariate responses. PLOS One, 12, e0181790. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0181790

Weary, B.P., Mendez, P.K., Lew, S.E., Nyman, B.L. & Will, K.W. (2019) Performance of ramp and pitfall traps for arthropods and non-target vertebrates in Californian oak woodland and chaparral habitats. The Pan-Pacific Entomologist, 95, 1–32. https://doi.org/10.3956/2019-95.1.21

Work, T.T., Buddle, C.M., Korinus, L.M. & Spence, J.R. (2002) Pitfall trap size and capture of three taxa of litter-dwelling arthropods: implications for biodiversity studies. Environmental Entomology, 31, 438–448. https://doi.org/10.1603/0046-225X-31.3.438

Zamani, A., Enayatnia, M., Mirshekar, A., Mayvan, M.M., Kováč, Ľ. & Marusik, Y.M (2025) New data on the spider fauna of Iran (Arachnida: Araneae), Part XII. Zootaxa, 5601, 1–45. https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.5601.1.1

Zolfaghari, F., Shahriyari, A., Fakhireh, A., Rashki, A.R., Noori, S. & Khosravi, H. (2011) Assessment of desertification potential using IMDPA model in Sistan plain. Watershed Management Research (Pajouhesh and Sazandegi), 91, 97–107. [in Persian]