Fabian A. Boetzl, Elena Ries, Gudrun Schneider, Jochen Krauss

• Background: Pitfall traps are commonly used to assess ground dwelling arthropod communities. The effects of different pitfall trap designs on the trapping outcome are poorly investigated however they might affect conclusions drawn from pitfall trap data greatly. Methods: We tested four pitfall trap types which have been used in previous studies for their effectiveness: a simple type, a faster exchangeable type with an extended plastic rim plate and two types with guidance barriers (V- and X-shaped). About 20 traps were active for 10 weeksBackground: Pitfall traps are commonly used to assess ground dwelling arthropod communities. The effects of different pitfall trap designs on the trapping outcome are poorly investigated however they might affect conclusions drawn from pitfall trap data greatly. Methods: We tested four pitfall trap types which have been used in previous studies for their effectiveness: a simple type, a faster exchangeable type with an extended plastic rim plate and two types with guidance barriers (V- and X-shaped). About 20 traps were active for 10 weeks and emptied biweekly resulting in 100 trap samples. Results: Pitfall traps with guidance barriers were up to five times more effective than simple pitfall traps and trap samples resulted in more similar assemblage approximations. Pitfall traps with extended plastic rim plates did not only perform poorly but also resulted in distinct carabid assemblages with less individuals of small species and a larger variation. Discussion: Due to the obvious trait filtering and resulting altered assemblages, we suggest not to use pitfall traps with extended plastic rim plates. In comprehensive biodiversity inventories, a smaller number of pitfall traps with guidance barriers and a larger number of spatial replicates is of advantage, while due to comparability reasons, the use of simple pitfall traps will be recommended in most other cases.…