We conducted a survey of a diverse herpetological community in southeastern Oklahoma from 2012-2013, with the goals of examining its composition and comparing the results of several commonly used survey methods. We used pitfall traps and funnel traps positioned along drift fences, funnel traps placed along logs, various aquatic turtle traps (hoop nets, crawfish traps, and minnow traps), artificial cover objects, and automated recording systems. We also recorded all incidental encounters. We documented 53 reptile and amphibian species. Incidental encounters, funnel traps along drift fences, and pitfall traps documented more species than any of the other methods. Incidental encounters, funnel traps along drift fences, and turtle traps were the only methods that captured unique species (i.e., species that were undetected using other methods), and the combination of those three methods documented representatives of every species found at the site. Funnel traps along drift fences had significantly higher capture rates than funnel traps along logs, and crawfish traps captured more species and had higher capture rates than minnow traps.



Document Type


Rights Information

Copyright of articles in Herpetological Conservation and Biology remain with the first author. Authors are free to archive their manuscript on personal or institutional websites, as well as in manuscript repositories.


Automated recording system, Cover board, Drift fence, Funnel trap, Hoop net, Pitfall trap

Publication Date


Journal Title

Herpetological Conservation and Biology