Abstract Context Pitfall trapping is a standard technique for indexing surface active invertebrates on beaches, and underpins the study of sandy shore ecology. However, pitfall traps may pose a risk to the flightless young of beach-nesting birds, which may fall into such traps and potentially die. Aim The aim of the present study was to compare the invertebrates captured in standard pitfall traps with those captured in pitfall traps fitted with one of three potential shorebird exclusion devices. Ideally, the traps with exclusion devices would perform similarly to the standard traps (to enable inter-study comparability) and would detect ecological gradients, such as those evident in invertebrate assemblages between the beach and foredune. Methods A systematic array was deployed, using 64 pitfall traps of four types: three types with bird-exclusion devices (a mesh cover, a fence around the rim and a low roof); and a standard pitfall trap with no exclusion device. Pitfall traps were stratified across two habitat types (upper beach and foredune) and were simultaneously deployed to control for environmental and other variables. Results Each trap type was broadly comparable in terms of the assemblage of invertebrates recorded, with two exceptions: (1) there was a slightly lower species diversity in mesh than in roofed traps; and (2) the assemblage captured differed between roofed and fenced traps, with the former trapping more isopods and amphipods. No trap type differed from control traps, and all differentiated an ecological gradient between beach and foredune. Thus, any trap design option we tested met our criteria. Conclusions and implications The present study shows that bird-exclusion devices for pitfall traps need not compromise trap performance, comparability or utility.

中文翻译：

---

用于在沙滩上设置陷阱的水鸟排除装置选项

摘要上下文陷阱捕获是索引海滩上表面活性无脊椎动物的标准技术，是沙滩生态学研究的基础。然而，陷阱陷阱可能会给海滩筑巢鸟类的不会飞的幼鸟带来风险，这些鸟类可能落入此类陷阱并可能死亡。目的 本研究的目的是比较在标准陷阱陷阱中捕获的无脊椎动物与在装有三种潜在水鸟排除装置之一的陷阱陷阱中捕获的无脊椎动物。理想情况下，带有排除装置的诱捕器的性能与标准诱捕器相似（以实现研究间的可比性），并且会检测生态梯度，例如海滩和前缘之间的无脊椎动物组合中明显的那些。方法 部署系统阵列，使用四种类型的 64 个陷阱：三种带有防鸟装置的类型（网罩、边缘围栏和低屋顶）；和一个没有排除装置的标准陷阱。陷阱分为两种栖息地类型（上海滩和前滩），并同时部署以控制环境和其他变量。结果每种诱捕器类型在记录的无脊椎动物组合方面具有广泛的可比性，但有两个例外：（1）网状诱捕器中的物种多样性略低于屋顶诱捕器；(2) 有顶捕集器和有围栏捕集器捕获的集合不同，前者捕集的等足类动物和片脚类动物更多。圈闭类型与对照圈闭没有区别，都区分了海滩和前滩之间的生态梯度。因此，我们测试的任何陷阱设计选项都符合我们的标准。