Context: Wildlife surveys often rely on a single live-capture technique to sample animal populations. Yet, animal personality (e.g. bold vs shy) can drive heterogeneity in capture probability, leading to biased sampling during live-capture trapping surveys.

Aims: We tested whether a personality-related capture bias is similar between two live-capture techniques, or whether techniques with different capture mechanisms are biased towards certain spectrums of personality.

Methods: We compared two live-capture techniques commonly used for surveying lizards, namely, noosing and pitfall traps. Techniques were deployed several days apart to survey populations of a desert-dwelling agamid, the military dragon, and we used outdoor open-field arenas to test for personality traits relating to boldness, activity and exploration.

Key results: We found that noosing and pitfall traps sampled distinctly different spectrums of personality, with no individuals being captured by both techniques. Unexpectedly, noosing, which involved people approaching dragons to capture them, was biased towards shyer individuals that stayed close to shelter. In contrast, pitfall traps, which were generally set in open areas, were biased towards capturing individuals that moved further from shelter.

Conclusions: We demonstrated that different live-capture techniques can be biased towards different spectrums of personality. We attribute the relationship between personality and technique to an interaction between the capture mechanisms of each technique and individual perceptions of risk and microhabitat use.

Implications: To overcome biased and selective sampling and target individuals along a broad spectrum of personality, surveys should use complementary techniques that vary in their capture mechanisms.

背景：野生动物调查通常依赖于单一的现场捕获技术来对动物种群进行采样。然而，动物的个性（例如大胆与害羞）会导致捕获概率的异质性，导致在实时捕获捕获调查期间有偏差的抽样。

目的：我们测试了两种实时捕捉技术之间的个性相关捕捉偏差是否相似，或者具有不同捕捉机制的技术是否偏向于特定的个性范围。

方法：我们比较了两种常用于调查蜥蜴的实时捕捉技术，即套索和陷阱陷阱。技术被部署了几天，以调查居住在沙漠中的军用龙的种群，我们使用户外露天竞技场来测试与大胆、活动和探索相关的个性特征。

主要结果：我们发现套索和陷阱陷阱对性格的不同光谱进行了采样，两种技术都没有捕获到任何个体。出乎意料的是，涉及人们接近龙捕捉它们的套索偏向于靠近庇护所的害羞个体。相比之下，陷阱陷阱通常设置在开放区域，倾向于捕获远离避难所的个体。

结论：我们证明了不同的实时捕捉技术可能会偏向于不同的性格范围。我们将个性和技术之间的关系归因于每种技术的捕获机制与个人对风险和微栖息地使用的看法之间的相互作用。

含义：为了克服有偏见和选择性的抽样并针对广泛的人格范围内的个人，调查应使用在其捕获机制上有所不同的互补技术。