Direct comparison of herpetofaunal camera, pitfall, and funnel trapping in the upland habitats of Florida, USA

Determining the best method to survey species of interest is critical for successful field research projects. When sampling herpetofauna, pitfall and funnel trapping allow a researcher to examine multiple individuals but require considerable field effort and animal handling. Recently, camera trapping has been used for studies focusing on herpetofauna. I compared pitfall and funnel arrays versus camera arrays during the same sampling events. I installed 60 triad drift fence arrays in the upland habitats of Avon Park Air Force Range in south‐central Florida, USA. The arrays were identical except half were pitfall arrays with 4 buckets and 6 funnel traps; the other half had a single bucket with a game camera facing downward in the center of the array. After 11 months of sampling, I recorded 2,373 herpetofaunal individuals of 33 species. Pitfall and funnel arrays captured 462 individuals of 28 species, whereas camera arrays recorded 1,911 individuals of 23 species. There were no significant differences in herpetofaunal assemblages between the 2 methods, but camera arrays recorded more individuals. Pitfall and funnel arrays were better for recording frog abundance and richness. Lizard richness was similar between methods, but the snake assemblages had many unique species with each method. A cost analysis found both methods to be relatively expensive, with pitfall and funnel trapping incurring higher labor costs and camera trapping having higher materials costs. I recommend using both pitfalls and cameras as the 2 methods were complementary, with each including species that the other missed. An ideal array design would have a center camera with pitfall and funnel traps along the arms, enabling the greatest species richness to be captured within a single array. Pitfall, funnel, and camera traps recorded high diversity and abundance of herpetofauna, proving to be useful for population and community studies.