Optimising design and effort for environmental surveys using dung beetles (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae) Claudia Tocco, 1 Danielle E.A. Quinn, John M. Midgley, Martin H. Villet Abstract—In biological monitoring, deploying an effective standardised quantitative sampling method, optimised by trap design and sampling effort, is an essential consideration. To exemplify this using dung beetle (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae: Scarabaeinae and Aphodiinae) communities, three pitfall trap designs (un-baited (TN), baited at ground level (flat trap, TF), and baited above the trap (hanging trap, TH)), employed with varying levels of sampling effort (number of traps = 1, 2, 3 … 10; number of days = 1, 2, 3), were evaluated for sampling completeness and efficiency in the Eastern Cape, South Africa. Modelling and resampling simulation approaches were used to suggest optimal sampling protocols across environmentally diverse sites. Overall, TF recovered the greatest abundance and species richness of dung beetles, but behavioural guilds showed conflicting trends: endocoprids preferred TH while paracoprids and telocoprids preferred TF. Resampling simulation of trap type and the two components of sampling effort suggested that six TF traps left for three days was most efficient in obtaining a representative sample and allowed differentiation between trap types, allowing the improved efficiency to be recognised. The effect of trap type on non-target specimens, particularly ants, was also investigated. TF and TH caught almost no by-catch, which is ethically desirable. Introduction The Conference of the Parties (CoP) to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) emphasised the imperatives of sharing data and making regular, timely assessments to support the science-policy interface and enhance the implementation of the Strategic Plan for Bio- diversity 2011–2020 (Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity 2010). It has become obvious that, to plan concrete actions to counteract the loss of biodiversity, statistical tools and model organisms are needed to distil information about landscape-scale patterns from local biological processes (Beale and Lennon 2012). The CoP CBD also recognised that, at the earliest stage of the planning process, the development of standardised quantitative methods underpins data-sharing, comparisons between independent studies across regions, and the tracking of changes over time (Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity 2010). Ants (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) (Agosti et al. 2000; Andersen et al. 2002) and dung beetles (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae: Scarabaeinae and Aphodiinae) (Spector 2006; Pryke et al. 2013; Tocco et al. 2013) are well-established model organisms for the type of monitoring biodiversity that was envisioned by the CoP CBD. Both taxa are commonly surveyed using inexpensive, efficient, and readily standardised pitfall traps (Woodcock 2005). Dung beetles are generally sampled using traps baited with dung. The efficiency of pitfall traps may be influenced by factors like ground and vegetation cover, weather conditions, and the physical character- istics (size, colour, material, number, placement, and position) of the traps (Woodcock 2005; Siewers et al. 2014). Dung beetle traps used in C. Tocco, 1 J.M. Midgley, Department of Zoology & Entomology, Rhodes University, PO Box 94, Grahamstown 6140, South Africa; and Department of Entomology and Arachnology, Albany Museum, Somerset Street, Grahamstown 6140, South Africa D.E.A. Quinn, Department of Biology, Acadia University, Wolfville, Nova Scotia, B4P 2R6, Canada M.H. Villet, Department of Zoology & Entomology, Rhodes University, PO Box 94, Grahamstown 6140, South Africa 1 Corresponding author (e-mail: claudia.tocco@me.com). Subject editor: Andrew Smith doi:10.4039/tce.2016.48 Received 4 January 2016. Accepted 12 June 2016. First published online 14 October 2016. Can. Entomol. 149: 214–226 (2017) © 2016 Entomological Society of Canada 214 terms of use, available at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.4039/tce.2016.48 Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. St Petersburg Library Russian Academy of Sciences RAS, on 13 Jul 2017 at 09:02:04, subject to the Cambridge Core