| Technique |
Target species |
Advantages |
Disadvantages |
| Pitfall trapping - dry traps |
Ground-dwelling species, poor jumpers and
climbers |
Does not harm animals, can detect active
animals that are not calling |
Poor capture rates, labor intensive,
expensive to establish |
| Pitfall trapping - wet traps |
Ground-dwelling species |
Potentially higher capture rates than dry
traps, less labor intensive |
Destructive technique - can kill large
numbers of animals |
| Funnel traps |
Ground-dwelling species |
Easier to install than pitfall traps |
Captured animals can quickly dehydrate and
die |
| Observational searches |
Active or obvious species |
Does not disturb habitat, cheap |
Does not detect concealed animals |
| Investigative searches |
Active and sedentary species |
May find more animals than observational
searches, cheap |
Disturbs habitat |
| Destructive searches |
Active and sedentary species |
May find more animals than less intensive
searches, cheap |
Destroys habitat, may scare animals before
they are found |
| Night driving |
Large, active species |
Can detect a large number of species with
relatively little effort |
Limited inference can be drawn regarding
habitat use, requires a vehicle (and roads) |
| Coverboards |
Salamanders, some anurans |
Non-destructive technique, suitable for
long-term studies |
Materials can be expensive, not suitable
for short-term studies or remote, steep terrain |
| Larval/tadpole sampling |
Species with aquatic larvae |
Can detect species at a site when adults
are absent |
Larvae can be difficult to identify |
| Counting and/or recording calls |
Anuran species that are calling during the
survey, prolonged breeders |
Detects calling animals that cannot be
seen, quick, non-destructive |
Does not detect animals that are present
but not calling |
| Automatic recording of calls |
Anuran species that are calling during the
survey, loud callers |
Does not require researchers to be
present, non-destructive |
Equipment can be expensive, technical
difficulties possible |