# Simulating capture efficiency of pitfall traps based on sampling strategy and the movement of ground-dwelling arthropods

Danish A. Ahmed, Ayah Beidas, Sergei Petrovskii, Joseph D. Bailey, Michael

B. Bonsall, Amelia S. C. Hood, John A. Byers, Emma Judith Hudgins, James

C Russell, Jana Růžičková, et al.

► To cite this version:

Danish A. Ahmed, Ayah Beidas, Sergei Petrovskii, Joseph D. Bailey, Michael B. Bonsall, et al. Simulating capture efficiency of pitfall traps based on sampling strategy and the movement of ground-dwelling arthropods. Methods in Ecology and Evolution, 2023, 14 (11), pp.2827-2843. 10.1111/2041-210x.14174. hal-04264663

HAL Id: hal-04264663

https://hal.science/hal-04264663v1

Submitted on 2 Jan 2024

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>
# Simulating capture efficiency of pitfall traps based on sampling strategy and the movement of ground-dwelling arthropods

Danish A. Ahmed<fnref n="1" /> ID | Ayah Beidas<fnref n="1" /> | Sergei V. Petrovskii² ID | Joseph D. Bailey³ ID |

Michael B. Bonsall⁴ ID | Amelia S. C. Hood⁵ ID | John A. Byers⁶ ID | Emma J. Hudgins⁷ ID |

James C. Russell⁸ ID | Jana Růžičková⁹ ID | Thomas W. Bodey¹⁰ ID | David Renault¹¹ ID |

Elsa Bonnaud¹² ID | Phillip J. Haubrock<fnref n="1" />,¹³,¹⁴ ID | Ismael Soto¹⁴ ID | Peter Haase¹³,¹⁵ ID

**Correspondence**

Danish A. Ahmed

Email: ahmed.d@gust.edu.kw

**Funding information**

Engineering and Physical Sciences
Research Council, Grant/Award Number:
EP/T027371/1; Gulf University for
Science and Technology (GUST; Internal
Seed Grant), Grant/Award Number:
234597

Handling Editor: D. J. (Johan) Kotze

**Abstract**

1. Pitfall traps are frequently used to capture ground-dwelling arthropods, particularly beetles, ants and spiders. The capture efficiency of a pitfall trapping system strongly depends on the number and opening size of traps, how traps are distributed over the sampling area (spatial arrangement) and the movement characteristics of arthropods.

2. We use numerical simulations for a single species to analyse the trap count patterns that emerge from these variables. Arthropod movement of individuals is modelled as correlated random walks, with multiple traps placed over an area, and catches are simulated as individual interaction with traps. We consider four different types of spatial arrangements of traps across a homogeneous landscape: grid (i.e. rectangular array), transect, nested-cross and randomised. We contextualise our results by considering the locomotion of *Pterostichus melanarius*, a highly active carabid beetle often serving as a biocontrol agent for the suppression of pest insects and weeds.

3. By simulating the trapping of randomly moving ground-dwelling arthropods, we show that there is an optimal inter-trap separation distance (trap spacing) that maximises captures, that can be expressed using exact formulae in terms of trap opening sizes, sampling area and trap number. Moreover, for the grid and

This is an open access article under the terms of the [Creative Commons Attribution](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by) License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

© 2023 The Authors. *Methods in Ecology and Evolution* published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of British Ecological Society.

<footnote n="1">¹Department of Mathematics and Natural Sciences, Center for Applied Mathematics and Bioinformatics, Gulf University for Science and Technology, Hawally, Kuwait; ²School of Computing and Mathematical Sciences, University of Leicester, Leicester, UK; ³Department of Mathematical Sciences, University of Essex, Colchester, UK; ⁴Mathematical Ecology Research Group, Department of Biology, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK; ⁵School of Agriculture, Policy, and Development, University of Reading, Reading, UK; ⁶Semiochemical Solutions, Beer Yaakov, Israel; ⁷Department of Biology, Carleton University, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada; ⁸School of Biological Sciences & Department of Statistics, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand; ⁹ELKH-ELTE-MTM Integrative Ecology Research Group, Biological Institute, Eötvös Loránd University, Budapest, Hungary; ¹⁰School of Biological Sciences, King's College, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK; ¹¹CNRS, ECOBIO (Ecosystèmes, Biodiversité, Évolution), UMR 6553, University of Rennes, Rennes, France; ¹²CNRS, AgroParisTech, Ecologie Systématique Evolution, Université Paris-Saclay, Orsay, France; ¹³Department of River Ecology and Conservation, Senckenberg Research Institute and Natural History Museum Frankfurt, Gelnhausen, Germany; ¹⁴Faculty of Fisheries and Protection of Waters, South Bohemian Research Center of Aquaculture and Biodiversity of Hydrocenoses, University of South Bohemia in České Budějovice, Vodňany, Czech Republic and ¹⁵Faculty of Biology, University of Duisburg-Essen, Essen, Germany</footnote>
nested-cross arrangements, larger trap spacing to maximise spatial coverage over the whole sampling area is suboptimal. Also, we find that over a large sampling area, there is a hierarchical order for spatial arrangements in relation to capture efficiency: grid, randomised, transect, followed by the nested-cross. However, over smaller sampling areas, this order is changed as the rate at which trap counts accumulate with trap number varies across arrangements—eventually saturating at different levels. In terms of movement effects, capture efficiency is maximised over a narrow diffusive range and does not depend strongly on the type of spatial arrangement—indicating an approximate optimal mode of arthropod activity, i.e. rate of spread.

4. Our approach simultaneously considers several important experimental design aspects of pitfall trapping providing a basis to optimise and adapt sampling protocols to other types of traps to better reflect their various purposes, such as monitoring, conservation or pest management.

KEYWORDS

arthropod movement, capture efficiency, diffusion, inter-trap spacing, pitfall trapping, random walk, sampling strategy, spatial arrangement

1 | INTRODUCTION

Pitfall trapping is a widespread technique in ecology for sampling ground-dwelling and randomly moving arthropods (hereafter 'arthropods' for brevity), with various applications (Bestelmeyer et al., 2000; Greenslade, 1964; Martín-López et al., 2011; O'Hara et al., 2008; Pimentel, 2009). During a typical pitfall trapping protocol, several traps are installed in the sampling area, and the identity and abundance of species caught are routinely monitored and recorded after a few consecutive days, several weeks or even months depending on the study focus (Henderson & Southwood, 2016; Price & Feer, 2012). These trap counts are then used in various estimations and indices, from relative population abundance of specific species, activity-density, microhabitat use or movement patterns of individuals to species richness and diversity of ground-dwelling assemblages (Hohbein & Conway, 2018; Montgomery et al., 2021). Trap counts depend on various biological, physical or environmental factors that can influence locomotor activity of arthropods (Baars, 1979; Engel et al., 2017; Koivula et al., 2003; Melbourne, 1999; Petrovskii et al., 2012; Raworth & Choi, 2001). Moreover, experimental design such as trap type (shape, size, depth, inclusion of bait/attractant, killing agent) and sampling strategies (spatial arrangement, number of traps, number of trap-nights, digging-in effect) are additional parameters that can potentially affect trap counts and the taxa caught (Brown & Matthews, 2016; Digweed et al., 1995; Engel et al., 2017; Greenslade & Greenslade, 1971; Hohbein & Conway, 2018; Jiménez-Carmona et al., 2019, 2020; Koivula et al., 2003; Work et al., 2002). Understanding the impact of these methodological factors on trap counts is thus crucial to draw inferences and conclusions in ecology (Cheli & Corley, 2010).

An efficient sampling strategy requires careful planning and must particularly consider the number of traps and their spatial arrangement (Woodcock, 2005). There are two types of pitfall trap spatial arrangements that are the most common in ecological studies. In the first type, traps are placed in a grid formation (i.e. rectangular array) spanning the area sampled, where the distance between adjacent traps are the same and predetermined (Corti et al., 2013; Crist & Wiens, 1995; Niemelä et al., 1992; Pérez-Bote & Romero, 2012; Raworth & Choi, 2001). This provides an even coverage of the sampling area, and traps are also easily located. In the second type, traps are aligned and form a transect (i.e. a straight line), with a fixed inter-trap distance (Crist & Wiens, 1995; Kharboutli & Mack, 1993; Larsen & Forsyth, 2005; Leasure et al., 2012). The transect trap arrangement is particularly useful for identifying the effects of environmental gradients (e.g. land use intensity) on arthropod communities (Larsen & Forsyth, 2005) and calculating distance-based biodiversity metrics (e.g. beta diversity, Koleff et al., 2003). In a few studies, traps are placed at random locations, enabling design-based inference (Williams & Brown, 2019). Other more specialised spatial arrangements have been proposed for improved estimates of population densities, e.g. the nested-cross array, a cross-shaped arrangement with variable distances between traps increasing by a constant factor along each wing (Perner & Schueler, 2004). Also, less conventional arrangements have been used, e.g. traps placed in pairs (two-circle method, Zhao et al., 2013), in triangular or circular formations (Hood et al., 2022) or in clusters (Hohbein & Conway, 2018). Finally, pitfall traps can be placed in a targeted (and ultimately opportunistic) manner to sample specific habitats or taxa rather than areas and populations (e.g. by placing traps near piles of dead wood to sample saproxylic beetles, Ulyshen & Hanula, 2009).
In addition to the sampling strategy deployed, the movement of the arthropods on or close to the ground also has important consequences for pitfall trapping success. At the individual level, this movement can be idealised as a random process which is described by random walks (RWs; Codling et al., 2008; Kareiva & Shigesada, 1983). For a discrete-time continuous space equivalent, the modelling procedure maps an actual arthropod's curvilinear movement path into a series of discrete steps linking successive individual locations (Berg, 1993; Turchin, 1998). The simple random walk (SRW) is one of the earliest models and considers movement paths to be uncorrelated and unbiased (Lin & Segel, 1988; Okubo, 1980). In this case, movement in any direction is equiprobable, and thus completely random. Although simplistic, in some instances, the SRW has served as a useful null model (e.g. the movement of infected ants, see Hughes et al., 2011). More realistically, in a homogeneous environment, a ground-dwelling arthropod is likely to continue moving in a similar direction, at least in the short term, with gradual rather than abrupt turns (Kareiva & Shigesada, 1983; Codling et al., 2008). To reflect this in movement models, the orientations of successive steps are correlated, and thus referred to as the correlated random walk (CRW; Bovet & Benhamou, 1988; Hall, 1977; Patlak, 1953). RWs have been used to model the movement of several ground-dwelling arthropods, e.g. ants, beetles (Bailey et al., 2021; Byers, 2001; Reynolds et al., 2013). By simulating the random movement of ground-dwelling arthropods, and computing trap counts as frequency of encounters with virtually placed traps, it is possible to analyse the direct effect of movement such as diffusion and tortuosity (i.e. the amount of turning in the individual paths) on pitfall trap efficiencies (Miller et al., 2015).

The virtual ecologist approach where simulated data and observer models are used to mimic real species provides a framework for the assessment of sampling protocols and analysis in spatial ecology (Zurell et al., 2010). Individual-based models can be used to simulate the movement of individuals in a population, their encounters with multiple virtual traps placed over a simulation area (analogous to a sampling area) and by extension of the entire trapping process (Bearup et al., 2016; Byers, 1993; Grimm & Railsback, 2005; Miller et al., 2015; Petrovskii et al., 2012, 2014). Such theoretical attempts have been crucial for investigating the effectiveness of sampling designs and strategies, and provide a strong basis for empirical validation (Engel et al., 2017). Individual-based models pose some advantages over field experiments as they are relatively cost-effective, less time-consuming and labour-intensive, and easy to replicate whilst ensuring homogeneity. For instance, simplifying assumptions such as constant environmental conditions and identical movement capacities across individuals can allow for increased focus on the process of interest—whilst minimising or removing potential sample biases (Petrovskii et al., 2012). A coherent analysis of some aspects of optimal trap design or strategies may be extremely challenging if relying solely on empirical observations (Ahmed & Petrovskii, 2019). While a simulation study alone is not able to replace the complexity of empirical field tests, the two research approaches are complementary and progress is enhanced when they are used in combination.

In this study, we used numerical simulations to examine pitfall trap capture efficiency based on spatially explicit arthropod movement in relation to (1) the optimal trap separation distance that maximises captures, and how this spacing depends on trap size, trap number and the size of the sampling area. We investigate (2) which of the four spatial arrangements capture more individuals, and how this order can be altered under different geometrical scenarios. We further analyse (3) the effects of arthropod movement on captures, such as diffusion and tortuosity, and to add realism, we contextualise our results by considering the movement of a model species, the ground-dwelling carabid *Pterostichus melanarius* (Coleoptera: Carabidae). Information such as this is useful for improving trap count interpretations and contributes towards developing more effective sampling strategies for monitoring or management of populations of arthropod species.

# 2 | MODELLING MOVEMENT AND TRAPPING OF GROUND-DWELLING ARTHROPODS

## 2.1 | Random walk framework

We model the independent movement of individuals in a population of M ground-dwelling arthropods over space using a discrete time RW. The curvilinear movement path of an individual $x=(x(t), y(t))$ over a given time interval $0 \le t \le T$ can be mapped as a RW of n steps with location $x_i=(x_i, y_i)$ at time $t_i$, where $i=0, 1, 2, ..., n$ is the number of steps. The step length, which is the distance between any two successive steps is $l_i=|x_i - x_{i-1}|$ with mean step length $E[I]$. Individual locations are recorded at discrete times $t_i$, and it is assumed that the duration between subsequent movement bouts is the same, as individual telemetry data often work with regular time steps (Cagnacci et al., 2010; Růžičková & Elek, 2021). Therefore, $t_i=i\Delta t$, where $\Delta t$ is a constant time increment independent of the step number i. The total duration of the n-step RW is then $T=n\Delta t$, with total path length $L=nE[I]$ and mean speed $E[v]=E[I]/\Delta t=L/T$.

If we consider an arthropod at location $x_{i-1}=(x_{i-1}, y_{i-1})$ at time $t_{i-1}$, then the location $x_i$ at the next time step $t_i$ can be expressed as

$$x_i = x_{i-1} + (\Delta x)_i, \qquad (1)$$

where $(\Delta x)_i=(\Delta x_i, \Delta y_i)$ is a step vector for the ith step along the walk, its components being random variables. This step vector can be expressed in terms of step lengths $l_i$ and step orientations (or headings) $\theta_i$ written in polar coordinates as $(\Delta x)_i=(l_i \cos \theta_i, l_i \sin \theta_i)$. The turning angle $\alpha_i$ can then be measured as the difference between the orientations of two successive steps $\alpha_i=\theta_i - \theta_{i-1}$, and the individual movement trajectory can be simulated given that the probability distributions of $l$ and $\alpha$ are prescribed. The RW framework for modelling arthropod movement is an idealisation (Figure 1), which is commonly used in the literature (Bailey et al., 2021; Kareiva & Shigesada, 1983; Miller et al., 2015; Turchin, 1998).
<figure><img src="image_2.png" /><figcaption>FIGURE 1 Mapping the continuous movement trajectory of a ground-dwelling arthropod as a series of discrete steps with step lengths $l_i$ and turning angles $\alpha_i$ resulting in the random walk.</figcaption></figure>

## 2.2 | Simple random walk

For a SRW, the probability distributions of step increments $\phi(\Delta x)$ and $\phi(\Delta y)$ are both centrally symmetric with zero means and the same finite variance. This ensures that the movement is completely random such that the direction of movement is completely independent of the previous directions moved, and there is no long-term directional bias in the walk (Weiss, 1994). We choose to consider normally distributed increments

$$ \phi(\Delta x) = \frac{1}{\sigma\sqrt{2\pi}} e^{-\frac{(\Delta x)^2}{2\sigma^2}}, \quad \phi(\Delta y) = \frac{1}{\sigma\sqrt{2\pi}} e^{-\frac{(\Delta y)^2}{2\sigma^2}}, \quad (2) $$

with $E[\Delta x] = E[\Delta y] = 0$ and $\text{var}[\Delta x] = \text{var}[\Delta y] = \sigma^2$, where $\sigma$ quantifies the mobility of the arthropod (Ahmed & Petrovskii, 2019; Petrovskii et al., 2012). The choice of normal increments leads to standard diffusive movement which is often observed and used in various movement phenomena and the corresponding SRW can be considered as a discrete-time equivalent of Brownian motion (Codling et al., 2008; Petrovskii et al., 2012). From Equation (2), the probability distribution functions for step lengths $l$ and turning angles $\alpha$ can be derived (see Petrovskii et al., 2014), and are given by

$$ \lambda(l) = \frac{1}{\sigma^2} e^{-\frac{l^2}{2\sigma^2}}, \quad \psi(\alpha) = \frac{1}{2\pi}, \quad (3) $$

where $\lambda(l)$ is the Rayleigh distribution and $\phi(\alpha)$ is the uniform distribution bounded between $-\pi$ and $\pi$. The mean and mean-squared step lengths are

$$ E[l] = \frac{\sigma\sqrt{2\pi}}{2}, \quad E[l^2] = 2\sigma^2, \quad (4) $$

which serve as useful characteristic length scales for each step in the RW. The mean speed is given by $E[v] = \frac{\sigma\sqrt{2\pi}}{2\Delta t}$, and therefore an increase in the mobility parameter $\sigma$ corresponds to a larger mean speed for a fixed time step $\Delta t$.

## 2.3 | Correlated random walk

A CRW allows for correlation between the orientations of successive steps, resulting in a short-term localised directional bias known as ‘forward persistence’ (Benhamou, 2004; Bovet & Benhamou, 1988; Hall, 1977; Kareiva & Shigesada, 1983). This provides a more realistic description in contrast to the SRW, as ground-dwelling arthropods in the short term are more likely to keep moving in the same direction than to perform abrupt turns. In this case, the distribution of turning angles is zero-centred, centrally symmetric and peaks around the mean value. An example of such is the von-Mises distribution $\psi(\alpha)$ with mean value $E[\alpha] = 0$,

$$ \psi(\alpha) = \frac{e^{\kappa \cos \alpha}}{2\pi l_0(\kappa)}, \quad l_0(\kappa) = \frac{1}{2\pi} \int_{-\pi}^{\pi} e^{\kappa \cos \alpha} d\alpha, \quad (5) $$

where $\psi(\alpha)$ is bounded between $-\pi$ and $\pi$, and $l_0(\kappa)$ denotes the zeroth-order modified Bessel function of the first kind with concentration parameter $\kappa > 0$ (Abramowitz & Stegun, 1972). Whilst the choice of the underlying distribution can have an effect on certain qualities of the RW model, such as expected location and mean square displacement (MSD; Bailey & Codling, 2021; Bartumeus et al., 2008; Codling et al., 2010), the von-Mises distribution has been identified to well describe the observed data (Goodwin & Fahrig, 2002; Schtickzelle et al., 2007) and has often been used in similar simulation studies (Ahmed & Petrovskii, 2019) and in the analysis of movement data (Nicosia et al., 2017).

The turning angle distribution is characterised by the mean cosine $c$ and the mean sine $s$, defined as

$$ c = E[\cos \alpha] = \frac{1}{2\pi} \int_{-\pi}^{\pi} (\cos \alpha) \psi(\alpha) d\alpha, \quad s = E[\sin \alpha] = \frac{1}{2\pi} \int_{-\pi}^{\pi} (\sin \alpha) \psi(\alpha) d\alpha, \quad (6) $$

both lying between 0 and 1. Since we consider $\psi(\alpha)$ to be zero-centred and symmetric, the mean sine is null, i.e. $s=0$. The mean cosine $c$ written as a function of $\kappa$ measures the strength of the
forward persistence, and for the von Mises distribution is computed as

$$c = \frac{l_1(\kappa)}{l_0(\kappa)}. \qquad (7)$$

If $c=0$, the turning angle distribution reduces to the uniform distribution (see Equation 3), in which case the SRW is a special case of the CRW. With increasing $c$, there is a greater tendency to move in a similar direction as that at the previous step, and at the other extreme end, $c=1$ corresponds to straight line (or ballistic) movement (Benhamou, 2004).

The MSD and the sinuosity index ($S$) are key metrics that characterise individual movement paths, and the diffusion coefficient ($D$) measures the rate of spread of an individual in space. The MSD is the expected value of the squared Euclidean distance between an individuals' initial and final positions, and can be computed for a balanced CRW (i.e. left and right turns are equiprobable) as

$$\text{MSD} = nE[I^2] + 2E[I]^2 \cdot \frac{c}{1-c} \cdot \left(n - \frac{1-c^n}{1-c}\right), \quad (8)$$

which is expressed in terms of moments of step length $l$, mean cosine of the turning angle $c$ and the number of steps in the walk $n$ (Codling et al., 2008; Hall, 1977; Kareiva & Shigesada, 1983). For a large number of steps $n$, the MSD approaches

$$\text{MSD}^* = n(E[I^2] + 2E[I]^2 \cdot \frac{c}{1-c}), \quad (9)$$

where '*' is included here to distinguish this asymptotic MSD from that presented in Equation (8).

The diffusion coefficient $D$ in the long term can be related to the asymptotic MSD as follows

$$D = \frac{\text{MSD}^*}{4n\Delta t} = \frac{1}{4\Delta t} (E[I^2] + 2E[I]^2 \cdot \frac{c}{1-c}). \quad (10)$$

The sinuosity index $S$ measures the tortuosity in an individual's movement path, and can be related to the diffusion coefficient as

$$S = \sqrt{\frac{E[v]}{D}} = 2\sqrt{\frac{L}{\text{MSD}^*}}, \quad (11)$$

where $E[v]$ is the mean speed and $L=nE[I]$ is the total path length (Benhamou, 2004, 2006; Codling et al., 2008, see also Ahmed et al., 2021).

## 2.4 | Simulating trapping for ground-dwelling arthropods

To simulate trap counts for a population of ground-dwelling arthropods, the initial location $x_0$ of $M^*$ individuals is drawn independently and at random in a circular region of radius $R$. Any individuals initially occurring within the traps are then removed, resulting in a remaining population of $M$ individuals. In polar coordinates, the initial location is given as

$$x_0 = (R\sqrt{U}, 2\pi U), \quad (12)$$

where $U$ is a random variable drawn from the uniform distribution between 0 and 1. A number of $J$ circular traps are placed with centres at $x_j^* = (x_j^*, y_j^*)$, $j=1, 2, \dots, J$, according to a specified spatial arrangement. All traps are circular and have the same opening size measured by the trap radius $r$ (see Figure 2a). This trap shape is most often used

<figure><img src="image_3.png" /><figcaption>FIGURE 2 Simulation of trap counts. (a) A population of $M^*=500$ individuals are initially uniformly distributed over a circular simulation area of radius $R=30$. In all, 24 circular traps of radius $r=1$ are placed according to a 4 by 6 grid spatial arrangement (red circles) with an inter-trap spacing of 8.36 (which is 80% of the maximum possible spacing). From the initial population, 20 individuals that occur within these traps are removed, resulting in a true population of $M=480$. The population is not confined and can move beyond the sampling area at subsequent steps. (b) Snapshot of the population distribution at time $t=10$ (time increment $\Delta t=0.1$, $n=100$ steps) where each individual performs a simple random walk with normally distributed increments (Equation 2). The mobility parameter is set to $\sigma=0.5$ and the mean step length is less than the trap diameter ($E[I]=0.63 < 2$, Equation 4); therefore, undetected trap passes are negligible. A total of 183 individuals have been trapped, but this count can vary with each run due to the randomness of the individual movement. (c) Trap counts are recorded at each time step, and represented as a stochastic trajectory with $183/480=38.1\%$ of the true population trapped at $t=10$. This is an example of the simulation process where using different trap arrangements and movement parameters based on taxon characteristics can be tested.</figcaption></figure>
in pitfall trapping studies and has been shown to be the most efficient in retaining captures (Ahmed & Petrovskii, 2019; Luff, 1975). In practice, different types of non-pitfall traps are also used to catch various arthropods, flying as well as ground-dwelling (O'Hara et al., 2008). Although our primary focus is on pitfall trapping, the results that follow are also applicable to other types of traps and various taxa. In this case, the trap radius r can be considered as an interception distance, i.e. an individual has to be in close proximity to the trap location for successful trapping (Miller et al., 2015). We consider the sampling area to be non-confined so that individuals can move beyond this region or even return during the course of their movement. This is to avoid any unnecessary geometry-specific biases, or any complexities that can arise due to individual interactions in the case a boundary was present (Bearup & Petrovskii, 2015; Christensen et al., 2021; Cocconi et al., 2021).

Once the initial distribution is defined, the movement of each individual is modelled by a CRW of n steps (of which the SRW is a special case) with normally distributed increments (Equation 2) and uniformly distributed initial step directions. The model assumes that each individual moves independently so that there are no changes in direction due to interactions. At each time step $t_i$ along the movement paths, those individuals that are located within any of the j traps, with condition

$$|\mathbf{x}_i - \mathbf{x}_j^*| < r, i=0, 1, \dots, n, j=1, 2, \dots, J, \quad (13)$$

are deemed to be trapped and removed, Figure 2b. Trap counts are computed as the total number of individuals caught in all traps at each time step, and expressed as a proportion of the initial population size M. These counts are summed cumulatively across time steps, and represented as a monotonically increasing stochastic trajectory over discrete time, Figure 2c. The magnitude of stochastic fluctuations in trap counts is reduced by averaging over multiple simulation runs, resembling averaging counts from a collection of multiple samples in the field.

The RW model is a position jump process where only individual locations are recorded at each time step. This simulation artefact can potentially result in an underestimation of trap counts because for an actual movement path, trap encounters in between subsequent locations can be undetected. However, in the case of circular traps, if the mean step length is less than the trap diameter (i.e. $E[I] < 2r$), then the probability of undetected trap passes is very low, and thus the impact on trap counts is negligible (see figure 6.4 in Ahmed et al., 2021).

## 2.5 | Spatial arrangements and inter-trap spacings

To analyse the impact of trap placement on trap counts, we consider four different spatial arrangements (1) randomised, (2) grid, (3) transect and (4) nested-cross (Figure 3). For any type of arrangement, the minimum separation distance (i.e. distance between trap centres of any two adjacent traps) is equal to the trap diameter $d_{min}=2r$ to ensure that traps do not overlap. For the randomised arrangement, the locations of trap centres $\mathbf{x}_j^*$, are uniformly distributed over a circle of radius $R-r$ so that all traps lie within the sampling area, given in polar coordinates as

$$\mathbf{x}_j^* = (R - r)\sqrt{U}, 2\pi U), j = 1, 2, \dots, J, \quad (14)$$

where U is a random variable drawn from the uniform distribution between 0 and 1, and therefore traps are separated by a randomised distance d, Figure 3a. For the grid arrangement, traps are placed in a rectangular array (p by q traps), with a fixed value for d. Here, p and q are chosen so that arrangement elongation is minimised, e.g. in the case of 24 traps, we have 4 by 6 traps (instead of 3 by 8 or 2 by 12), Figure 3b. This is to maximise coverage in both horizontal and vertical directions. In the case of a linear transect arrangement, traps are placed in a straight line (or equivalently along a diagonally oriented line) with a fixed value for d, Figure 3c.

In general, for any arrangement with a fixed separation between traps, the distance depends on the radius of the sampling area R, the number of traps J and the trap radius r (Woodcock, 2005). In the case of maximal spatial coverage, whilst ensuring that all traps lie within the bounds of the sampling area, the maximum separation distance $d_{max}$ can be expressed in terms of these variables.

For the grid arrangement where traps are placed in a p by q rectangular array with total number of traps $J=pq$, we have that

$$d_{max} = \frac{2(R - r)}{\sqrt{(p - 1)^2 + (q - 1)^2}}, \quad (15)$$

which, in the case of a square arrangement ($p=q$), simplifies to

$$d_{max} = \frac{2(R - r)}{\sqrt{2}(\sqrt{J} - 1)}. \quad (16)$$

For the transect arrangement, we have

$$d_{max} = \frac{2(R - r)}{J - 1}. \quad (17)$$

Using these upper bounds, a normalised separation distance $\delta$ (i.e. a proportion of the maximum possible inter-trap spacing) can be defined as

$$\delta = \frac{d - d_{min}}{d_{max} - d_{min}}, \quad 0 \le \delta \le 1, \quad (18)$$

where $d=d_{min}$ at $\delta=0$ and $d=d_{max}$ at $\delta=1$. For the nested-cross arrangement (Figure 3d), the number of traps placed is a multiple of 4, i.e. one trap along each wing in each configuration (Perner & Schueler, 2004). In this case, inter-trap separation distances are variable and increase by a constant factor w along each wing, with minimum and maximum possible values

$$w_{min} = \frac{2r}{\mathbf{x}_1^*} + 1, \quad w_{max} = \left(\frac{R-r}{\mathbf{x}_1^*}\right)^{\frac{4}{J-4}}, \quad (19)$$

where the first trap along the horizontal right-wing is placed with coordinates $(\mathbf{x}_1^*, 0)$. Similarly, a normalised separation factor $\omega$ can be defined as

$$\omega = \frac{w - w_{min}}{w_{max} - w_{min}}, \quad 0 \le \omega \le 1, \quad (20)$$

where $w=w_{min}$ at $\omega=0$ and $w=w_{max}$ at $\omega=1$.
<figure><img src="image_4.png" /><figcaption>FIGURE 3 Spatial arrangements of traps. (a) randomised, (b) grid (specific 4 by 6 case), (c) transect and (d) nested-cross. The illustration is shown here with $J=24$ circular pitfall traps of radius $r$ placed within a circular unconfined sampling area of radius $R$. For plots (b, c), inter-trap spacing is 80% of the maximum possible value $d_{max}$, and for plot (d) 90% of the maximum separation factor $w_{max}$. However, we later consider a varied trap number starting with a minimum of 4 traps and increasing by 4 traps in each configuration, with varied trap spacing. Trap placement is always ensured to be symmetrical with respect to the horizontal and vertical axes, except for the randomised arrangement.</figcaption></figure>

## 2.6 | Pterostichus melanarius as a model species

For purposes of interpretation and to provide ecological context, we consider the ground beetle *P. melanarius* (Illiger, 1798) as a model species, which is a close representative of other carabid species from the same genus (Raupach et al., 2020) and some other beetles with similar biological and physical traits, e.g. *Poecilus cupreus* (Linnaeus, 1758) (Bailey et al., 2021). *P. melanarius* is distributed across Europe and Asia, often occurring in high abundances and being a dominant ground beetle species especially in agricultural landscapes (e.g. Bažok et al., 2007). In North America, it is one of the most successful introduced and established arthropod invaders (Niemela et al., 1997). This species is a generalist predator and thus considered to be a beneficial insect in many different agricultural systems (Busch et al., 2021), as it is an important natural enemy of several pests and thus often serves as a biocontrol (Sunderland, 2002), e.g. for the field slug *Deroceras reticulatum* (O.F. Müller, 1774) (McKemey et al., 2003), the blueberry maggot *Rhagoletis mendax* (Curran, 1932) (Renkema et al., 2012) and consumption of weed seeds (Frei et al., 2019). Therefore, trapping of *P. melanarius* is predominately for monitoring and conservation purposes (Chiverton, 1984; Dixon & McKinlay, 1992). The typical size of this species is around 1.27–1.87 cm with a mean body length of 1.57 cm

(Hůrka, 1996), and a trap size of $r=5$ cm considered later in this study is sufficiently large for the effective trapping of this species. Moreover, movement data are readily available for *P. melanarius* (e.g. see Allema et al., 2014), and several modelling studies based on trapping have used this species as a viable candidate to present examples (Allema et al., 2019; Petrovskaya et al., 2018; Petrovskii et al., 2014).

## 2.7 | Modelling a realistic trapping scenario

To interpret the effects of changes in trap counts in relation to movement diffusion, spatial and temporal units must reflect those corresponding to the locomotion and dispersal traits of *P. melanarius*, including the length scales of the experimental setup. Pitfall trap radius can range between 0.01 and 0.1 m with a median of 0.03 m (Brown & Matthews, 2016); we consider $r=0.1$ m with a sampling area of radius $R=10$ m (with area $314 \text{ m}^2$) to reflect a typical trapping scenario in the field. Usually, the movement of ground-dwelling arthropods is tracked in the field for a few days or weeks (Růžičková & Elek, 2021), and employing frequency of pitfall traps varies significantly, with trap count data recorded daily, weekly, monthly (Holland & Reynolds, 2005) or on a shorter timescale, e.g. every 3 hours (Tuf et al., 2012). We chose to compare trap counts after a duration of 2.5 days because considerable count differences using different trap arrangements begin to appear up to this time and is sufficient to discern trapping efficiency (see later Figure 6 for trapping simulations for *P. melanarius*). However, for other study aims, the simulation experiment could be run for a longer duration to reflect trap monitoring for several weeks. In an $n=1000$ step RW (as used in our simulations), the total duration of 2.5 days corresponds to a time increment of $\Delta t=0.06$ h (3.6 min) between successive steps. In relation to the locomotion of the ground beetle *P. melanarius*, it has been empirically observed that the mean speed ranges between 2 and 2.8 m/h in cereal fields, and 1.5 and 2.5 m/h in a wood (Wallin & Ekbom, 1988). To reflect this, we chose the length scale for steps in the RW as $\sigma=0.1$ m, which translates to a mean step length of $E[v]=0.125$ m (Equation 4), with a mean speed of $E[v]=2.09$ m/h.

# 3 | ANALYSIS OF SIMULATED TRAP COUNTS

## 3.1 | Optimal trap spacing

In the case of the grid arrangement with $J=24$ traps, the capture efficiency peaks at $\delta \approx 0.8$, Figure 4a. From Equation (18), this implies that the optimal separation distance is $d_{opt} \approx 0.8d_{max}$, i.e. 80% of the distance that maximises spatial coverage over the sampling area. We also found that this also applies for different trap numbers. Also, using Equation (15) we obtain

$$d_{opt} \approx 0.8 \left( \frac{2(R-r)}{\sqrt{(p-1)^2 + (q-1)^2}} \right), \quad (21)$$
<figure><img src="image_5.png" /><figcaption>FIGURE 4 Trap counts computed for the (a) grid and (b) transect arrangements as a function of normalised separation distances $\delta$, or in the case of the (c) nested-cross arrangement, in terms of normalised separation factors $\omega$. A total number of $J=24$ traps of equal radius $r=1$ are placed over a circular sampling area of varying sizes $R=100, 125, 150, 175, 200$. For the grid arrangement, traps are placed in a $p=4$ by $q=6$ rectangular array, and for the nested-cross arrangement, the first trap along the horizontal right-wing is placed at $(x_1^*, 0)=(4, 0)$. $M^*=10,000$ individuals are placed over the site, and those individuals occurring within the traps are removed. Each individual in the remaining population independently performs a SRW with normally distributed increments with mobility parameter $\sigma=1$ (Equation 2). Trap counts are computed using the simulation methodology described in section 2.4 and recorded after each walker executes at most $n=1000$ steps. This total step number is sufficiently large so that trap counts are approaching saturation. Each simulated count is averaged over 10 simulations so that differences in trap counts are <1% and thus negligible.</figcaption></figure>

which determines the optimal grid separation distance in terms of the size of the sampling area $R$, trap size $r$ and the number of traps $J$ placed in a $p$ by $q$ rectangular array.

For the transect arrangement, the largest trap counts are obtained when $\delta \approx 1$, i.e. when spatial coverage is maximised with separation distance

$$d_{\text{opt}} \approx \frac{2(R-r)}{J-1}, \qquad (22)$$

given by Equation (17), Figure 4b. For the nested-cross arrangement, the peak trap count occurs when $\omega \approx 0.9$ (Figure 4c), i.e. the optimal separation factor is 90% of $w_{\text{max}}$, and therefore

$$w_{\text{opt}} \approx 0.9 \left( \frac{R-r}{x_1^*} \right)^{\frac{4}{J-4}}, \qquad (23)$$

from Equations (19 and 20). Conversely, for a chosen separation distance, these formulae can also be used by field ecologists to explicitly define the area of the sampling space ($A = \pi R^2$), as this information is often omitted when reporting sampling methodology. For example, on rearranging Equation (21), one gets

$$A \approx \pi \left[ r + \frac{5}{8} d_{\text{opt}} \sqrt{(p-1)^2 + (q-1)^2} \right]^2. \qquad (24)$$

Usually in empirical field studies, the trap size is much less than the size of the sampling area, i.e. $r/R \ll 1$, in which case Equations (21–23) simplify to

$$d_{\text{opt}} \approx \frac{1.6R}{\sqrt{(p-1)^2 + (q-1)^2}}, \quad d_{\text{opt}} \approx \frac{2R}{J-1}, \quad w_{\text{opt}} \approx 0.9 \left( \frac{R}{x_1^*} \right)^{\frac{4}{J-4}}, \qquad (25)$$

for the grid, transect and nested-cross arrangements, respectively. For example, in the case of 24 traps in a $p=4$ by $q=6$ grid configuration, we obtain $d_{\text{opt}} \approx 0.27R$ from Equation (25). Thus, the capture efficiency, relative to the given number of traps, is maximised if the trap separation distance $d$ is approximately 27% of the radius of the sampling area $R$.

The optimal arrangements for the grid and nested-cross ensure that no traps are on the boundary of the sampling area. For the transect arrangement only, the outer two traps are on the boundary, and for the randomised arrangement, it can be expected that only relatively few traps are on/close to the boundary. Therefore, the boundary effects in our model are assumed to be negligible, but could be accounted for by considering a sampling area which lies within a larger landscape, introducing a buffer region so that individuals can enter the sampling area from outside (Royle & Converse, 2014). In this case, captures can be computed as a percentage of the 'effective sample area'.

## 3.2 | Effect of the trap arrangement, trap number and trap size

There is a clear hierarchy among the four spatial arrangements of traps in terms of capture efficiency. If the size of the sampling area is relatively large in relation to individual movement diffusion, the ranked order is grid, randomised, transect followed by the nested-cross, Figure 5c,d. However, if arthropods disperse over a smaller area with the same diffusivity, this order can change, in which case the randomised and nested-cross are more efficient than grid and transect designs, respectively, Figure 5a,b. The critical trap number where this transition occurs is lower for increasing trap size. For instance, the randomised arrangement is more capture efficient than
the grid arrangement if at least 28 traps are placed with size *r* = 1 over a sampling area of size *R* = 100, but this occurs at a lower trap number of 24 traps in case of *r* = 2 c.f. Figure 5a,b. One explanation for this result is that trap counts accumulate at a slower rate with increase in trap number—approaching saturation, but the underlying rates of decline vary between spatial arrangements. Also, for a large trap number over small areas of dispersal, the placement of any additional traps does not necessarily result in a substantial increase in captures, Figure 5a,b. To determine how these trap arrangements are ranked in terms of efficiency based on a site to trap size ratio requires further investigation, i.e. simulating trap counts whilst considering incremental increases in both *r* and *R* with varying rates of individual movement diffusion.

**3.3 | Effect of movement diffusion**

Based on the choice of movement parameters that reflect the lo-
comotion of *P. melanarius*, a general observation is that trap counts
rapidly increase with small increases in diffusivity at low diffusion
values, followed by a peak, and a subsequent decline. In the cases
of the grid and randomised arrangements, the decline is also rela-
tively rapid and thus similar trap counts are obtained at both low or
high levels of diffusion—which corresponds to whether movement
paths are highly tortuous or not. In contrast, for the transect and
nested-cross arrangements, the decline is gradual, and the differ-
ences in trap counts at both extreme ends are substantial. The peak
occurs over a narrow diffusive range, between *D* = 0.28 m²/h (c = 0.6,

$S=2.74$) and 0.61 m²/h (c=0.8, $S=1.86$), and thus can be independent of the type of arrangement. Therefore, for *P. melanarius*, there is an approximate unique mode of activity (i.e. rate of spread) that translates to maximal trap counts (Figure 6).

4 | DISCUSSION

The theory behind the trapping of ground-dwelling arthropods moving
randomly has been well developed (see e.g. Miller et al., 2015) and has
often been tested and validated against empirical field studies (Adams
et al., 2020; Bearup et al., 2016; Manoukis et al., 2014). Although
numerical simulations provide a useful modelling framework, a key
assumption in our study is that individuals are treated as homogene-
ous i.e. identical in terms of biological and physical characteristics in
a constant environment, whereas real-world trapping contexts are
more complex. In practice, capture rates can be influenced by various
factors, e.g. heterogeneity in the population distribution, individual
interactions, environmental or habitat differences, taxonomic groups,
species, sexes and life stages (Hillen & Painter, 2013; Luff, 1975;
Schmidt et al., 2006; Yamashita et al., 2010), albeit attempts have been
made to standardise the trapping process to limit some of this vari-
ability (Brown & Matthews, 2016; Saska et al., 2021). The simulations
could be developed further to account for these context-specific sce-
narios. Also, we expect that our results on optimal trap spacings and
optimal spatial arrangements are applicable towards a population con-
sisting of multiple ground-dwelling arthropod species from the same
genus that exhibit random walking behaviour with similar movement

<figure><img src="image_6.png" /></figure>

**FIGURE 5** Trap counts computed for the different spatial arrangements with total number of traps *J*=4, 8, 12, ..., 32 with trap radius *r*=1 or 2, over a sampling area of sizes *R*=100 or 200. For the grid and transect arrangements, traps are separated at optimal distances *d*<sub>opt</sub> computed from Equations (21 and 22), respectively. For the nested-cross arrangement, we use the optimal separation factor *w*<sub>opt</sub> (computed with *x*<sub>1</sub>*=4), Equation (23). Note that these optimal values depend on the trap number *J*, trap size *r* and the size of the sampling area *R*, and thus varied across these different scenarios. In cases with a larger trap size (b–d), nested-cross arrangements were only possible with a lower trap number to ensure traps were placed within the confines of the sampling area. The initial population size prior to removal is *M*<sup>*</sup> = 10,000 individuals, and the movement type is a SRW with mobility parameter *σ*=1, and each individual executes at most *n*=1000 steps. These parameters are the same as that in Figure 4.
<figure><img src="image_7.png" /><figcaption>FIGURE 6 Trap counts as a function of movement diffusion for *Pterostichus melanarius* which ranges between D=0.08 m²/h (c=0, S=5.01) and D=1.26 m²/h (c=0.9, S=1.29), with step length scale σ=0.1 m, time increment Δt=0.06 h and step number n=1000. Trap counts are recorded after a maximum path length of L=125.33 m has been reached (Equations 9–11). We considered J=24 traps of radius r=0.1 m placed according to different spatial arrangements on a sampling area of size R=10 m, with optimal trap spacings: dₐ₉₅₄ for grid (Equation 21), dₐ₉₅₄ for transect (Equation 22) and wₐ₉₅₄ for nested-cross (Equation 23).</figcaption></figure>

traits and movement paths in a particular habitat. Nevertheless, this
requires empirical validation under controlled field trials, or at least
smaller-scale laboratory experiments.

4.1 | Trap spacing

Trap separation distances vary significantly in empirical field stud-
ies, ranging between 0.15 and 100m, but the most common spac-
ings used are 1-2m, 5m or 10m (Hohbein & Conway, 2018; Ward
et al., 2001). A standardised trap spacing of 10m has been pro-
posed based on reviews of pitfall trapping methods for arthropods
(Hohbein & Conway, 2018), whereas others have suggested 50m
to minimise trap interference (Larsen & Forsyth, 2005). Our view is
that these recommendations would benefit further from accounting
for key variables such as trap size, sampling area size and the number
of traps used.

Pitfall traps that are spaced widely apart have been observed
to capture more individuals than traps placed closely together, e.g.
5 or 10m inter-trap spacings resulted in more captures than 1m
(Digweed et al., 1995; Ward et al., 2001). Our simulation results in
Figure 4 confirm this for all trap arrangements considered. It has
also been stated that it may be desirable to increase trap separa-
tion by ensuring that there is an even coverage of traps over the
entire sampling area (Woodcock, 2005). Although we found this to
be the case for the transect arrangement (Equation 22), for the grid
arrangement slightly more captures can be obtained if the inter-trap

spacing is approximately 80% of that which maximises spatial cov-
erage, and for the nested-cross arrangement, 90% of the maximum
possible separation factor. Moreover, Equations (21–23 and 25) are
generic and provide functional relationships for optimal trap spac-
ings in terms of trap size, sampling area size and trap number. This is
a novel and important development, as the effect of trap spacing on
captures had thus far been poorly understood.

As an example, the activity and population density of *P. melanarius* was studied in a mark-recapture experiment with the use of 156 pitfall traps of diameter 60 mm (r=0.03 m) placed in a 12 by 13 grid arrangement over farmland with an effective sampling area of 8268 m² (Thomas et al., 1998). The inter-trap spacing used was 10 m along the north-south axis, and 5.3 m along the east-west axis, and was scaled due to the confines of the hedgerow. Assuming a homogeneous landscape with no barriers, we estimate from Equation (21) that a constant optimal trap separation distance is 5.04 m, in both the vertical and horizontal directions. Similar estimates can be obtained for other types of spatial arrangements, from Equations (22 and 23). Alternatively, if the size of the sampling area A is undefined, it can be estimated for a chosen separation distance dₐ₉₅₄, from Equation (24). For example, consider a grid with 16 traps placed in a p=4 by q=4 arrangement, with trap size r=0.05 m, and inter-trap spacing dₐ₉₅₄ = 5 m, the effective sampling area is A ≈ 556.4 m² (corresponding to a radius R=13.3 m for a circular field, or side lengths 23.6 m for a square field).

This demonstrates the usage and applicability of these formu-
lae, at least for species that exhibit random walk behaviour. Future
studies should aim to develop formulae that accounts for variation
in movement across individuals within the same species, or even
among populations (Shaw, 2020) so that their trapping arrangements
can be optimised. Also, these formulae can be utilised to investigate
other important aspects of sampling design, such as, e.g. the min-
imum inter-trap spacing required to ensure that traps are spatially
independent—which can, in turn, limit the number of traps placed
over a predetermined sampling area.

4.2 | Trap number and spatial arrangements

Considerable research effort has focused on aspects of trap design,
e.g. trap colour, material, shape, size, type of killing preservative
(Boetzl et al., 2018; Cheli & Corley, 2010; Lange et al., 2011), leading
to recommendations of a standard design (Brown & Matthews, 2016;
Saska et al., 2021). In contrast, some studies have shown that sam-
pling strategies can influence trap count interpretations (Baker &
Barmuta, 2006; Perner & Schueler, 2004; Ward et al., 2001), but
the impacts of spatial arrangements on capture efficiency remain
unclear, even though some attempts have been made to address
this knowledge gap (e.g. Crist & Wiens, 1995; Ellis & Bedward, 2014;
Perner & Schueler, 2004).

An extensive review of pitfall trapping methods for estimating
arthropod abundance reported that the most used arrangement is
transect, followed by grid (Hohbein & Conway, 2018). Instead, we
found that the grid and random arrangements are considerably better at maximising capture rates than both the transect and nested-cross arrangements when sampling within a homogeneous area, see, e.g. Figure 5a or d. If, however, hypotheses require sampling across narrow environmental gradients (e.g. along a river running down a mountain; Larsen & Forsyth, 2005), then a transect approach may still be preferred, but consideration as to whether this can consist of, for example, multiple grids, may optimise both aspects of the experimental design.

In the case of non-pitfall traps, it has been shown that the capture efficiency is similar regardless of whether traps are placed in a grid or at random (Byers, 1993). This is consistent with our simulation results, as the trap count differences amount to a few percent (see Figure 5e or f). We note, however, that even slight improvements in capture efficiency can help in high-risk contexts such as pests, invasive species or species of conservation concern that are damaging at low densities. In the case of frequent trap encounters with arthropods moving with the same diffusivity over smaller sampling areas, these differences can be substantial as saturation in captures occurs much faster for the grid, rendering the random arrangement more efficient (see Figure 5a or d).

Our focus has been on optimising capture efficiency, which has obvious applications for pest monitoring and removal; however, field ecologists may have other goals when undertaking trapping, e.g. how the placement of traps and their inter-trap spacings can affect the sampling duration to reach a minimum sample size, plateauing of capture rates (i.e. accumulation), trade-off between number of traps versus time deployed, distribution of captures across traps. The simulation methodology described in this study can be utilised to investigate these different lines of enquiries and could be a focal point in future studies.

## 4.3 | Arthropod movement

The trapping theory posed in this study is generic and could be applied towards various ground-dwelling arthropods given information about the species' locomotion. Arthropod movement data are usually recorded as a sequence of geo-coordinates of individual positions at regular time intervals (Cagnacci et al., 2010; White & Garrett, 1990). The movement path of a specific species can be modelled using RWs once probability distributions are fitted against distributions of observed step lengths and turning angles (Byers, 2001, 2009; Engel et al., 2017; Morales et al., 2004). Key parameters relating to the movement characteristics of the species such as the mean speed *E*[v], the diffusion coefficient *D* and the sinuosity index *S* (Equations 10 and 11) can be directly computed from the statistical measures of these probability distributions. A simulation experiment can then be conducted for various trapping scenarios, resembling the trapping of this target species under different sampling strategies.

To connect our simulations to an ecological context, in Figure 6 we used parameters resulting in a mean speed representative of the ground beetle *P. melanarius*, and varied the strength of the forward

persistence *c* in the movement paths. In our simulations, the diffusion coefficient and sinuosity index varied between *D*=0.08 m²/h, *S*=5.01 (corresponding to completely random motion, *c*=0) and *D*=1.26 m²/h, *S*=1.29 (in the case of high forward persistence, *c*=0.9; see Figure 6). This is consistent with empirical studies on the activity density of *P. melanarius*, where *D* is estimated to be around 1 and 1.16 m²/h (for females and males, respectively; Thomas et al., 1998). However, the movement of *P. melanarius* can be influenced by various aspects, internal and external, as has been previously documented in other carabid species. For instance, activity levels can vary if beetles are starved or satiated (Fournier & Loreau, 2001; Grüm, 1971), intermittency, e.g. periods of rest (Bailey et al., 2021), habitat characteristics (Allema et al., 2014; Goodwin & Fahrig, 2002; Růžičková & Veselý, 2018), possible competition with other species (Růžičková et al., 2021). We estimated that for *P. melanarius*, trap counts are maximised over a narrow diffusive range between *D*=0.28 m²/h, *S*=2.74 (*c*=0.6) and 0.61 m²/h, *S*=1.86 (*c*=0.8). The reported *D* values indicate a faster rate of spread corresponding to a low level of path tortuosity, which, based on our calculations, can lead to a lower capture efficiency (Figure 6). Moreover, this also reinforces the fact that separating the effects of activity and population density for carabid beetles based on trap counts can be a challenging task (Thomas et al., 1998); for instance, in the case of the grid or randomised arrangements, similar trap counts can be obtained for *P. melanarius* that exhibits both low and high movement diffusion. Although we present the methodology to determine the impact of movement diffusion on trap counts, generalisations to other arthropod taxa require either testing for select species, or by considering a range of mean speeds (i.e. varied mobility) in the simulations.

The traps considered in this study are passive so that arthropods move completely independently and are not aware of trap locations. However, in practice, capture rates can be increased with the use of non-pitfall traps baited with a lure, e.g. odours, semiochemicals, sex pheromones or light (e.g. panel or multiple funnel traps, Lindgren, 1983; Miller et al., 2013; also see Byers, 1999; Byers et al., 1989; O'Hara et al., 2008). This is useful, for instance, in monitoring or for the direct control of arthropod pest populations at low densities (McCullough et al., 2011), or to detect foreign or 'exotic' pests as they invade a novel environment (Rassati et al., 2015). Once a trap is baited, and the arthropod population is receptive to the lure, the movement is locally biased towards the trap location and can be modelled as a biased and correlated random walk (BCRW; Benhamou, 2006; Codling et al., 2008, 2010). This provides a more flexible approach to modelling arthropod movement, as it allows individuals to move with both some knowledge of their previous direction, as well as with a preference towards a specific direction or target (Bailey et al., 2018). In this case, one can expect the strength of the global bias component to be dependent on individual location in reference to where traps are placed, with an increase in attraction closer to the traps. Analysis of baited trapping systems in the presence of multiple traps is under-studied from a modelling perspective and yet to be developed, albeit with some recent progress (see e.g.
Alqubori & Petrovskii, 2022), and is an important line of direction for future research work.

## 4.4 | Real-world examples for field applications

In community monitoring programs that is for the assessment of arthropod abundance and diversity, for practical reasons often a lower number of traps (around 8–12) are placed at small spatial scales, with smaller opening size $r=0.05$ m (Brown & Matthews, 2016; Work et al., 2002). If 8 traps (4 by 2) are used covering an area of $50m^2$, the grid arrangement is the most capture efficient with optimal inter-trap spacing of 2 m from Equation (21), also see Figure 5. Similarly, this applies for 12 traps (4 by 3) over the same area with a trap spacing of 1.7 m from Equation (21). If, however, a transect arrangement is used, which is often the case to identify the effects of environmental gradients (Baker & Barmuta, 2006), the recommended trap spacing is 1.1 m for 8 traps, and 0.7 m for 12 traps, from Equation (22). Such information is translatable, and thus more broadly useful for developing effective sampling strategies, e.g. eLTER which aims to set up a pan-European pitfall trap monitoring scheme (Haase et al., 2018; Mirtl et al., 2018), and NEON (National Ecological Observatory Network) which is involved in large-scale pitfall trapping of ground beetles (Hoekman et al., 2017). For reference, c.f. the study on the community structure of darkling beetles *Eleodes* spp., where 80 traps were placed over an area of $638m^2$, equivalent to around 8 traps per $64m^2$ or 12 traps per $96m^2$ (McIntyre, 2000).

Besides focusing on entire arthropod communities with the use of pitfall traps, other types of non-pitfall traps are used to capture target species. For example, these species could be of conservation concern (rare and endangered species, Hoekman et al., 2017; Knapp et al., 2020; Martín-López et al., 2011) or important for pest monitoring and management (El-Sayed et al., 2006; Schlyter et al., 2001). Such target species are often either rare (i.e. endangered species or newly arrived invasive species currently occurring in low abundances) or highly abundant (i.e. invasive species requiring pest management). In either context, species can be targeted for several reasons, e.g. monitoring red list species for conservation purposes (The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species, 2022) or the direct control of pests can be achieved by mass trapping or lure-to-kill approaches (El-Sayed et al., 2006). In both cases, a higher number of traps are used. For instance, if we consider a trap location with an interaction distance of $r=0.1$ m, and if 20 traps are placed covering an area of $50m^2$, the randomised arrangement is the most efficient, Figure 5b. If used, however, there would be a trade-off between increased capture efficiency and the additional effort required to locate traps for sampling.

## 4.5 | Broad applicability to other ecological problems

The results of this study are also relevant in other ecological contexts. For instance, trap cropping is a pest control strategy where

non-host plant stands are installed to attract pests to reduce the pest density in the main protected crop (Banks & Ekbom, 1999; Hannunen, 2005; Holden et al., 2012). The capture efficiency of the trap crop system depends on the interplay between the physical design and the movement characteristics of the pests. The methods and simulation design presented in this study could be applied to determine optimal inter-trap crop distances, their placement and the effects of pest movement (diffusion, tortuosity), and thus contribute towards an optimal physical design for pest control. Analogously, ‘sentinel plantings’ of trees from a potential invaded range have been grown in the native range of some invasive insect pests to understand the likelihood of invasive species establishment and spread. This study’s theory could help determine the distance between stands of sentinel trees (Britton et al., 2010).

Another example is for examining encounter rates between randomly moving animals and multiple immobile non-revisitable targets (Bartumeus et al., 2005; Gurarie & Ovaskainen, 2013; James et al., 2008). The study of encounters is fundamental to many ecological processes, e.g. searching for food items, suitable habitat patches or avoiding predators. Our study could provide insights on how the distribution of targets/resources impacts encounter or capture probabilities. In addition, the simulation methodology can be easily modified to incorporate revisibility so that individuals that encounter the traps are not removed from the population. With this, individuals continue to perform the RW, and can thus encounter traps multiple times during their movement—which directly relates to wildlife monitoring with the use of camera traps (Burton et al., 2015). This also has applications towards foraging efficiency (Viswanathan et al., 2011), that is the capacity for a predator to catch a prey within a detection radius $r$, which is equivalent to trapping by a circular trap with radius $r$, but after prey detection the predator reorientates and continues to move (Benhamou & Collet, 2015). This range of scenarios demonstrates the potential applicability of our numerical simulations (given some modifications) across several ecological contexts, and further contributes towards addressing problems arising in contemporary spatial ecology.

## AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS

Danish A. Ahmed conceived the ideas and designed methodology; Danish A. Ahmed and Ayah Beidas conducted the numerical simulations; Danish A. Ahmed led the writing of the manuscript. All authors contributed critically to the drafts, providing important ecological context to interpret the results and gave final approval for publication.

## ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We thank Simon Benhamou (Centre d'Ecologie Fonctionnelle et Evolutive, CNRS) and Elena Angulo (Université Paris-Saclay) for comments on an earlier version of this manuscript.

## FUNDING INFORMATION

DAA is funded by the Gulf University for Science and Technology (GUST) internal seed fund, grant award no. 234597. SP was partially supported by EPSRC, UK through Project EP/T027371/1. DR
is funded by the ASICS project (ANR-20-EBI5-004, BiodivERsA, BiodivClim call 2019-2020), and the French Polar Institute (Project 136-SUBANTECO).

## CONFLICT OF INTEREST STATEMENT

All authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

## PEER REVIEW

The peer review history for this article is available at https://www.webofscience.com/api/gateway/wos/peer-review/10.1111/2041-210X.14174.

## DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

All illustrations and MATLAB simulation codes are publicly and freely available on GitHub at https://github.com/daa119/pitfall_trapping and Zenodo at https://doi.org/10.5281/ZENODO.8033956 (Ahmed, 2023).

## ORCID

Danish A. Ahmed https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2490-1546

Sergei V. Petrovskii https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6259-2695

Joseph D. Bailey https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6365-8120

Michael B. Bonsall https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0250-0423

Amelia S. C. Hood https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3803-0603

John A. Byers https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7233-6334

James C. Russell https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5901-6416

Jana Růžičková https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9703-4538

Thomas W. Bodey https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5334-9615

David Renault https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3644-1759

Phillip J. Haubrock https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2154-4341

Ismael Soto https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7288-6336

Peter Haase https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9340-0438

## REFERENCES

Abramowitz, M., & Stegun, I. A. (1972). *Handbook of mathematical functions: With formulas, graphs and mathematical tables*. Dover Publications.

Adams, C., Schenker, J., Weston, P., Gut, L., & Miller, J. (2020). Path meander of male codling moths (*Cydia pomonella*) foraging for sex pheromone plumes: Field validation of a novel method for quantifying path meander of random movers developed using computer simulations. *Insects*, 11(9), 549. https://doi.org/10.3390/insects11090549

Ahmed, D. A. (2023). daa119/pitfall_trapping: Simulation Matlab codes (Version v1). Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/ZENODO.8033956

Ahmed, D. A., Bailey, J. D., Petrovskii, S. V., & Bonsall, M. B. (2021). Mathematical bases for 2D insect trap counts modelling. In T. D. Pham, H. Yan, M. W. Ashraf, & F. Sjöberg (Eds.), *Advances in artificial intelligence, computation, and data science* (Vol. 31, pp. 133–159). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-69951-2_6

Ahmed, D. A., & Petrovskii, S. V. (2019). Analysing the impact of trap shape and movement behaviour of ground-dwelling arthropods on trap efficiency. *Methods in Ecology and Evolution*, 10(8), 1246–1264. https://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210X.13207

Allema, B., Hemerik, L., Rossing, W. A. H., Groot, J. C. J., Van Lenteren, J. C., & Van Der Werf, W. (2019). Dispersal of a carabid beetle in farmland is driven by habitat-specific motility and preference at habitat interfaces. *Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata*, 167(8), 741–754. https://doi.org/10.1111/eea.12804

Allema, B., Van Der Werf, W., Van Lenteren, J. C., Hemerik, L., & Rossing, W. A. H. (2014). Movement behaviour of the carabid beetle *Pterostichus melanarius* in crops and at a habitat Interface explains patterns of population redistribution in the field. *PLoS One*, 9(12), e115751. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0115751

Alqubori, O., & Petrovskii, S. (2022). Analysis of simulated trap counts arising from correlated and biased random walks. *Ecological Modelling*, 470, 110016. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2022.110016

Baars, M. A. (1979). Patterns of movement of radioactive carabid beetles. *Oecologia*, 44(1), 125–140. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00346411

Bailey, J. D., Benefer, C. M., Blackshaw, R. P., & Codling, E. A. (2021). Walking behaviour in the ground beetle, *Poecilus cupreus*: Dispersal potential, intermittency and individual variation. *Bulletin of Entomological Research*, 111(2), 200–209. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007485320000565

Bailey, J. D., & Codling, E. A. (2021). Emergence of the wrapped Cauchy distribution in mixed directional data. *Advances in Statistical Analysis*, 105(2), 229–246. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10182-020-00380-7

Bailey, J. D., Wallis, J., & Codling, E. A. (2018). Navigational efficiency in a biased and correlated random walk model of individual animal movement. *Ecology*, 99(1), 217–223. https://doi.org/10.1002/ecy.2076

Baker, S. C., & Barmuta, L. A. (2006). Evaluating spatial autocorrelation and depletion in pitfall-trap studies of environmental gradients. *Journal of Insect Conservation*, 10(3), 269–276. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10841-006-0016-8

Banks, J. E., & Ekbom, B. (1999). Modelling herbivore movement and colonization: Pest management potential of intercropping and trap cropping. *Agricultural and Forest Entomology*, 1(3), 165–170. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1461-9563.1999.00022.x

Bartumeus, F., Catalan, J., Viswanathan, G. M., Raposo, E. P., & Da Luz, M. G. E. (2008). The influence of turning angles on the success of non-oriented animal searches. *Journal of Theoretical Biology*, 252(1), 43–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtbi.2008.01.009

Bartumeus, F., Da Luz, M. G. E., Viswanathan, G. M., & Catalan, J. (2005). Animal search strategies: A quantitative random-walk analysis. *Ecology*, 86(11), 3078–3087. https://doi.org/10.1890/04-1806

Bažok, R., Kos, T., Barčić, J. I., Kolak, V., & Lazarević, B. (2007). Abundance and distribution of the ground beetles *Pterostichus melanarius* (Illiger, 1798) and *Pseudoophonus rufipes* (DeGeer, 1774) in corn fields in Croatia. *Entomologia Croatica*, 11(1–2), 39–51.

Bearup, D., Benefer, C. M., Petrovskii, S. V., & Blackshaw, R. P. (2016). Revisiting Brownian motion as a description of animal movement: A comparison to experimental movement data. *Methods in Ecology and Evolution*, 7(12), 1525–1537. https://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210X.12615

Bearup, D., & Petrovskii, S. (2015). On time scale invariance of random walks in confined space. *Journal of Theoretical Biology*, 367, 230–245. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtbi.2014.11.027

Benhamou, S. (2004). How to reliably estimate the tortuosity of an animal's path. *Journal of Theoretical Biology*, 229(2), 209–220. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtbi.2004.03.016

Benhamou, S. (2006). Detecting an orientation component in animal paths when the preferred direction is individual-dependent. *Ecology*, 87(2), 518–528. https://doi.org/10.1890/05-0495

Benhamou, S., & Collet, J. (2015). Ultimate failure of the Lévy foraging hypothesis: Two-scale searching strategies outperform scale-free ones even when prey are scarce and cryptic. *Journal of Theoretical Biology*, 387, 221–227. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtbi.2015.09.034

Berg, H. C. (1993). *Random walks in biology*. Princeton University Press.

Bestelmeyer, B., Agosti, D., Alonso, L., Brandao, C., Brown, W., Jr., Delabie, J., & Silvestre, R. (2000). Field techniques for the study of ground-dwelling ants. An overview, description, and evaluation. In L. E. Alonso & T. R. Schultz (Eds.), *Ants. Standard methods for measuring and monitoring biodiversity* (pp. 122–144). Smithsonian Institution Press.
Boetzl, F. A., Ries, E., Schneider, G., & Krauss, J. (2018). It's a matter of design—How pitfall trap design affects trap samples and possible predictions. *PeerJ*, 6, e5078. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.5078

Bovet, P., & Benhamou, S. (1988). Spatial analysis of animals' movements using a correlated random walk model. *Journal of Theoretical Biology*, 131(4), 419–433. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5193(88)80038-9

Britton, K., White, P., Kramer, A., & Hudler, G. (2010). A new approach to stopping the spread of invasive insects and pathogens: Early detection and rapid response via a global network of sentinel plantings. *New Zealand Journal of Forestry Science*, 40, 109–114.

Brown, G. R., & Matthews, I. M. (2016). A review of extensive variation in the design of pitfall traps and a proposal for a standard pitfall trap design for monitoring ground-active arthropod biodiversity. *Ecology and Evolution*, 6(12), 3953–3964. https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.2176

Burton, A. C., Neilson, E., Moreira, D., Ladle, A., Steenweg, R., Fisher, J. T., Bayne, E., & Boutin, S. (2015). Review: Wildlife camera trapping: A review and recommendations for linking surveys to ecological processes. *Journal of Applied Ecology*, 52(3), 675–685. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.12432

Busch, A. K., Wham, B. E., & Tooker, J. F. (2021). Life history, biology, and distribution of *Pterostichus melanarius* (Coleoptera: Carabidae) in North America. *Environmental Entomology*, 50(6), 1257–1266. https://doi.org/10.1093/ee/nvab090

Byers, J. A. (1993). Simulation and equation models of insect population control by pheromone-baited traps. *Journal of Chemical Ecology*, 19(9), 1939–1956. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00983798

Byers, J. A. (1999). Effects of attraction radius and flight paths on catch of scolytid beetles dispersing outward through rings of pheromone traps. *Journal of Chemical Ecology*, 25(5), 985–1005. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1020869422943

Byers, J. A. (2001). Correlated random walk equations of animal dispersal resolved by simulation. *Ecology*, 82(6), 1680–1690. https://doi.org/10.2307/2679810

Byers, J. A. (2009). Modeling distributions of flying insects: Effective attraction radius of pheromone in two and three dimensions. *Journal of Theoretical Biology*, 256(1), 81–89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtbi.2008.09.002

Byers, J. A., Anderbrant, O., & Löqvist, J. (1989). Effective attraction radius: A method for comparing species attractants and determining densities of flying insects. *Journal of Chemical Ecology*, 15(2), 749–765. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01014716

Cagnacci, F., Boitani, L., Powell, R. A., & Boyce, M. S. (2010). Animal ecology meets GPS-based radiotelemetry: A perfect storm of opportunities and challenges. *Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences*, 365(1550), 2157–2162. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2010.0107

Cheli, G. H., & Corley, J. C. (2010). Efficient sampling of ground-dwelling arthropods using pitfall traps in arid steppes. *Neotropical Entomology*, 39(6), 912–917. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1519-566X2010000600010

Chiverton, P. A. (1984). Pitfall-trap catches of the carabid beetle *Pterostichus melanarius*, in relation to gut contents and prey densities, in insecticide treated and untreated spring barley. *Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata*, 36(1), 23–30. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1570-7458.1984.tb03402.x

Christensen, K., Cocconi, L., & Sendova-Franks, A. B. (2021). Animal intermittent locomotion: A null model for the probability of moving forward in bounded space. *Journal of Theoretical Biology*, 510, 110533. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtbi.2020.110533

Cocconi, L., Kuhn-Régnier, A., Neuss, M., Sendova-Franks, A. B., & Christensen, K. (2021). Reconstructing the intrinsic statistical properties of intermittent locomotion through corrections for boundary effects. *Bulletin of Mathematical Biology*, 83(4), 28. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11538-020-00848-2

Codling, E. A., Bearon, R. N., & Thorn, G. J. (2010). Diffusion about the mean drift location in a biased random walk. *Ecology*, 91(10), 3106–3113. https://doi.org/10.1890/09-1729.1

Codling, E. A., Plank, M. J., & Benhamou, S. (2008). Random walk models in biology. *Journal of the Royal Society Interface*, 5(25), 813–834. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsif.2008.0014

Corti, R., Larned, S. T., & Datry, T. (2013). A comparison of pitfall-trap and quadrat methods for sampling ground-dwelling invertebrates in dry riverbeds. *Hydrobiologia*, 717(1), 13–26. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10750-013-1563-0

Crist, T. O., & Wiens, J. A. (1995). Individual movements and estimation of population size in darkling beetles (Coleoptera: Tenebrionidae). *The Journal of Animal Ecology*, 64(6), 733. https://doi.org/10.2307/5852

Digweed, S., Currie, C., Cárcamo, H., & Spence, J. (1995). Digging out the 'digging-in effect' of pitfall traps: Influences of depletion and disturbance on catches of ground beetles (Coleoptera: Carabidae). *Pedobiologia*, 39, 561–576.

Dixon, P. L., & McKinlay, R. G. (1992). Pitfall trap catches of and aphid predation by *Pterostichus melanarius* and *Pterostichus madidus* in insecticide treated and untreated potatoes. *Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata*, 64(1), 63–72. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1570-7458.1992.tb01595.x

Ellis, M. V., & Bedward, M. (2014). A simulation study to quantify drift fence configuration and spacing effects when sampling mobile animals. *Ecosphere*, 5(5), art55. https://doi.org/10.1890/ES14-00078.1

El-Sayed, A. M., Suckling, D. M., Wearing, C. H., & Byers, J. A. (2006). Potential of mass trapping for long-term Pest management and eradication of invasive species. *Journal of Economic Entomology*, 99(5), 1550–1564. https://doi.org/10.1093/jee/99.5.1550

Engel, J., Hertzog, L., Tiede, J., Wagg, C., Ebeling, A., Briesen, H., & Weisser, W. W. (2017). Pitfall trap sampling bias depends on body mass, temperature, and trap number: Insights from an individual-based model. *Ecosphere*, 8(4). https://doi.org/10.1002/ecs2.1790

Fournier, E., & Loreau, M. (2001). Activity and satiation state in *Pterostichus melanarius*: An experiment in different agricultural habitats: *P. melanarius* foraging activity in agricultural habitats. *Ecological Entomology*, 26(3), 235–244. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2311.2001.00314.x

Frei, B., Guenay, Y., Bohan, D. A., Traugott, M., & Wallinger, C. (2019). Molecular analysis indicates high levels of carabid weed seed consumption in cereal fields across Central Europe. *Journal of Pest Science*, 92(3), 935–942. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10340-019-01109-5

Goodwin, B. J., & Fahrig, L. (2002). Effect of landscape structure on the movement behaviour of a specialized goldenrod beetle, *Trirhabda borealis*. *Canadian Journal of Zoology*, 80(1), 24–35. https://doi.org/10.1139/z01-196

Greenslade, P. (1964). Pitfall trapping as a method for studying populations of Carabidae (Coleoptera). *The Journal of Animal Ecology*, 33(2), 301. https://doi.org/10.2307/2632

Greenslade, P., & Greenslade, P. (1971). The use of baits and preservatives in pitfall traps. *Australian Journal of Entomology*, 10(4), 253–260. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1440-6055.1971.tb00037.x

Grimm, V., & Railsback, S. F. (2005). Individual-based modeling and ecology. Princeton University Press.

Grüm, L. (1971). Spatial differentiation of the *Carabus* L. (Carabidae, Coleoptera) mobility. *Ekologia Polska*, 19, 1–34.

Gurarie, E., & Ovaskainen, O. (2013). Towards a general formalization of encounter rates in ecology. *Theoretical Ecology*, 6(2), 189–202. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12080-012-0170-4

Haase, P., Tonkin, J. D., Stoll, S., Burkhard, B., Frenzel, M., Geijzendorffer, I. R., Häuser, C., Klotz, S., Kühn, I., McDowell, W. H., Mirtl, M., Müller, F., Musche, M., Penner, J., Zacharias, S., & Schmeller, D. S. (2018). The next generation of site-based long-term ecological monitoring: Linking essential biodiversity variables and ecosystem integrity. *Science of the Total Environment*, 613–614, 1376–1384. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.08.111

Hall, R. L. (1977). Amoeboid movement as a correlated walk. *Journal of Mathematical Biology*, 4(4), 327–335. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00275081
Hannunen, S. (2005). Modelling the interplay between pest movement and the physical design of trap crop systems. *Agricultural and Forest Entomology*, 7(1), 11–20. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-9555.2005.00237.x

Henderson, P. A., & Southwood, R. (2016). *Ecological methods* (4th ed.). John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Hillen, T., & Painter, K. J. (2013). Transport and anisotropic diffusion models for movement in oriented habitats. In M. A. Lewis, P. K. Maini, & S. V. Petrovskii (Eds.), *Dispersal, individual movement and spatial ecology* (Vol. 2071, pp. 177–222). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-35497-7_7

Hoekman, D., LeVan, K. E., Gibson, C., Ball, G. E., Browne, R. A., Davidson, R. L., Erwin, T. L., Knisley, C. B., LaBonte, J. R., Lundgren, J., Maddison, D. R., Moore, W., Niemelä, J., Ober, K. A., Pearson, D. L., Spence, J. R., Will, K., & Work, T. (2017). Design for ground beetle abundance and diversity sampling within the National Ecological Observatory Network. *Ecosphere*, 8(4). https://doi.org/10.1002/ecs2.1744

Hohbein, R. R., & Conway, C. J. (2018). Pitfall traps: A review of methods for estimating arthropod abundance. *Pitfall traps: A review of methods for estimating arthropod abundance*. https://doi.org/10.1002/wsb.928

Holden, M. H., Ellner, S. P., Lee, D.-H., Nyrop, J. P., & Sanderson, J. P. (2012). Designing an effective trap cropping strategy: The effects of attraction, retention and plant spatial distribution. Designing an effective trap cropping strategy. *Journal of Applied Ecology*, 49(3), 715–722. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2664.2012.02137.x

Holland, J., & Reynolds, C. (2005). The influence of emptying frequency of pitfall traps on the capture of epigeal invertebrates, especially *Pterostichus madidus* (Coleoptera: Carabidae). *British Journal of Entomology and Natural History*, 18, 259–263.

Hood, A. S. C., Aryawan, A. A. K., Advento, A. D., Suberkah, W. R., Ashton-Butt, A., Ps, S., Caliman, J., Naim, M., Foster, W. A., & Turner, E. C. (2022). A whole-ecosystem method for experimentally suppressing ants on a small scale. *Methods in Ecology and Evolution*, 13(4), 852–865. https://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210X.13774

Hughes, D. P., Andersen, S. B., Hywel-Jones, N. L., Himaman, W., Billen, J., & Boomsma, J. J. (2011). Behavioral mechanisms and morphological symptoms of zombie ants dying from fungal infection. *BMC Ecology*, 11(1), 13. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6785-11-13

Hůrka, K. (1996). *Carabidae of the Czech and Slovak republics* = *Carabidae České a Slovenské republiky*. Kabourek.

James, A., Plank, M. J., & Brown, R. (2008). Optimizing the encounter rate in biological interactions: Ballistic versus Lévy versus Brownian strategies. *Physical Review E*, 78(5), 051128. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevE.78.051128

Jiménez-Carmona, F., Carpintero, S., & Reyes-López, J. L. (2019). The digging-in effect on ant studies with pitfall traps: Influence of type of habitat and sampling time. *Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata*, 167(10), 906–914. https://doi.org/10.1111/eea.12834

Jiménez-Carmona, F., Carpintero, S., & Reyes-López, J. L. (2020). Ant sampling: The importance of pitfall trap depth as a bias factor. *Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata*, 168(9), 703–709. https://doi.org/10.1111/eea.12965

Kareiva, P. M., & Shigesada, N. (1983). Analyzing insect movement as a correlated random walk. *Oecologia*, 56(2–3), 234–238. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00379695

Kharboutli, M. S., & Mack, T. P. (1993). Comparison of three methods for sampling arthropod pests and their natural enemies in peanut fields. *Journal of Economic Entomology*, 86(6), 1802–1810. https://doi.org/10.1093/jee/86.6.1802

Knapp, M., Knappová, J., Jakubec, P., Vonička, P., & Moravec, P. (2020). Incomplete species lists produced by pitfall trapping: How many carabid species and which functional traits are missing? *Biological Conservation*, 245, 108545. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2020.108545

Koivula, M., Kotze, J., Hiisivuori, L., & Rita, H. (2003). Pitfall trap efficiency: Do trap size, collecting fluid and vegetation structure matter? *Entomologica Fennica*, 14(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.33338/ef.84167

Koleff, P., Gaston, K. J., & Lennon, J. J. (2003). Measuring beta diversity for presence-absence data. *Journal of Animal Ecology*, 72(3), 367–382. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2656.2003.00710.x

Lange, M., Gossner, M. M., & Weisser, W. W. (2011). Effect of pitfall trap type and diameter on vertebrate by-catches and ground beetle (Coleoptera: Carabidae) and spider (Araneae) sampling: Reducing by-catches in pitfall traps. *Methods in Ecology and Evolution*, 2(2), 185–190. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2041-210X.2010.00062.x

Larsen, T. H., & Forsyth, A. (2005). Trap spacing and transect design for dung beetle biodiversity Studies1. *Biotropica*, 37(2), 322–325. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-7429.2005.00042.x

Leasure, D. R., Rupe, D. M., Phillips, E. A., Opine, D. R., & Huxel, G. R. (2012). Efficient New above-ground bucket traps produce comparable data to that of standard transects for the endangered American burying beetle, *Nicrophorus americanus* Olivier (Coleoptera: Silphidae). *The Coleopterists Bulletin*, 66(3), 209–218. https://doi.org/10.1649/072.066.0305

Lin, C. C., & Segel, L. A. (1988). Mathematics applied to deterministic problems in the natural sciences. SIAM.

Lindgren, B. S. (1983). A multiple funnel trap for scolytid beetles (coleoptera). *The Canadian Entomologist*, 115(3), 299–302. https://doi.org/10.4039/Ent115299-3

Luff, M. L. (1975). Some features influencing the efficiency of pitfall traps. *Oecologia*, 19(4), 345–357. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00348110

Manoukis, N. C., Hall, B., & Geib, S. M. (2014). A computer model of insect traps in a landscape. *Scientific Reports*, 4(1), 7015. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep07015

Martín-López, B., González, J. A., & Montes, C. (2011). The pitfall-trap of species conservation priority setting. *Biodiversity and Conservation*, 20(3), 663–682. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-010-9973-z

McCullough, D. G., Siegert, N. W., Poland, T. M., Pierce, S. J., & Ahn, S. Z. (2011). Effects of trap type, placement and ash distribution on emerald ash Borer captures in a low density site. *Environmental Entomology*, 40(5), 1239–1252. https://doi.org/10.1603/EN11099

McIntyre, N. (2000). Community structure of *Eleodes* beetles (Coleoptera: Tenebrionidae) in the shortgrass steppe: Scale-dependent uses of heterogeneity. *Western North American Naturalist*, 60, 1–15.

McKemey, A. R., Symondson, W. O. C., & Glen, D. M. (2003). Predation and prey size choice by the carabid beetle *Pterostichus melanarius* (Coleoptera: Carabidae): The dangers of extrapolating from laboratory to field. *Bulletin of Entomological Research*, 93(3), 227–234. https://doi.org/10.1079/BER2003240

Melbourne, B. A. (1999). Bias in the effect of habitat structure on pitfall traps: An experimental evaluation. *Austral Ecology*, 24(3), 228–239. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1442-9993.1999.00967.x

Miller, D. R., Crowe, C. M., Barnes, B. F., Gandhi, K. J. K., & Duerr, D. A. (2013). Attaching lures to multiple-funnel traps targeting saproxylic beetles (Coleoptera) in pine stands: Inside or outside funnels? *Journal of Economic Entomology*, 106(1), 206–214. https://doi.org/10.1603/EC12254

Miller, J., Adams, C., Schenker, J., & Weston, P. (2015). Trapping of small organisms moving randomly: Principles and applications to pest monitoring and management (1st ed.). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-12994-5

Mirtl, M., Borer, T., E., Djukic, I., Forsius, M., Haubold, H., Hugo, W., Jourdan, J., Lindenmayer, D., McDowell, W. H., Muraoka, H., Orenstein, D. E., Pauw, J. C., Peterseil, J., Shibata, H., Wohner, C., Yu, X., & Haase, P. (2018). Genesis, goals and achievements of long-term ecological research at the global scale: A critical review of ILTER and future directions. *Science of the Total Environment*, 626, 1439–1462. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.12.001
Montgomery, G. A., Belitz, M. W., Guralnick, R. P., & Tingley, M. W. (2021). Standards and best practices for monitoring and benchmarking insects. *Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution, 8*, 579193. https://doi.org/10.3389/fevo.2020.579193

Morales, J. M., Haydon, D. T., Frair, J., Holsinger, K. E., & Fryxell, J. M. (2004). Extracting more out of relocation data: Building movement models as mixtures of random walks. *Ecology*, 85(9), 2436–2445. https://doi.org/10.1890/03-0269

Nicosia, A., Duchesne, T., Rivest, L.-P., & Fortin, D. (2017). A general hidden state random walk model for animal movement. *Computational Statistics & Data Analysis*, 105, 76–95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.csda.2016.07.009

Niemela, J., Spence, J. R., & Carcamo, H. (1997). Establishment and interactions of carabid populations: An experiment with native and introduced species. *Ecography*, 20(6), 643–652. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0587.1997.tb00433.x

Niemelä, J., Spence, J. R., & Spence, D. H. (1992). Habitat associations and seasonal activity of ground-beetles (coleoptera, Carabidae) in Central Alberta. *The Canadian Entomologist*, 124(3), 521–540. https://doi.org/10.4039/Ent124521-3

O'Hara, J. E., UsUpensky, I., Bostanian, N. J., Capinera, J. L., Chapman, R., Barfield, C. S., Swisher, M. E., Barfield, C. S., Heppner, J., Fitzgerald, T. D., Scheffrahn, R. H., Constantino, R., Sanborn, A., Gayubo, S. F., Arthurs, S., Tipping, C., Lysyk, T., Coons, L. B., Rothschild, M., ... Clercq, P. D. (2008). Traps for capturing insects. In J. L. Capinera (Ed.), *Encyclopedia of entomology* (pp. 3887–3901). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-6359-6_2523

Okubo, A. (1980). *Diffusion and ecological problems: Mathematical models*. Springer.

Patlak, C. S. (1953). Random walk with persistence and external bias. *The Bulletin of Mathematical Biophysics*, 15(3), 311–338. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02476407

Pérez-Bote, J. L., & Romero, A. J. (2012). Epigeic soil arthropod abundance under different agricultural land uses. *Spanish Journal of Agricultural Research*, 10(1), 55. https://doi.org/10.5424/sjar/2012101-202-11

Perner, J., & Schueler, S. (2004). Estimating the density of ground-dwelling arthropods with pitfall traps using a nested-cross array. *Journal of Animal Ecology*, 73(3), 469–477. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0021-8790.2004.00821.x

Petrovskaya, N., Forbes, E., Petrovskii, S., & Walters, K. (2018). Towards the development of a more accurate monitoring procedure for invertebrate populations, in the presence of an unknown spatial pattern of population distribution in the field. *Insects*, 9(1), 29. https://doi.org/10.3390/insects9010029

Petrovskii, S., Bearup, D., Ahmed, D. A., & Blackshaw, R. (2012). Estimating insect population density from trap counts. *Ecological Complexity*, 10, 69–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecocom.2011.10.002

Petrovskii, S., Petrovskaya, N., & Bearup, D. (2014). Multiscale approach to pest insect monitoring: Random walks, pattern formation, synchronization, and networks. *Physics of Life Reviews*, 11(3), 467–525. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.plrev.2014.02.001

Pimentel, D. (2009). Pesticides and pest control. In R. Peshin & A. K. Dhawan (Eds.), *Integrated pest management: Vol. 1: Innovation-development process* (1st ed., pp. 83–87). Springer.

Price, D. L., & Feer, F. (2012). Are there pitfalls to pitfalls? Dung beetle sampling in French Guiana. *Organisms Diversity & Evolution*, 12(3), 325–331. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13127-012-0106-2

Rassati, D., Faccoli, M., Petrucco Toffolo, E., Battisti, A., & Marini, L. (2015). Improving the early detection of alien wood-boring beetles in ports and surrounding forests. *Journal of Applied Ecology*, 52(1), 50–58. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.12347

Raupach, M. J., Hannig, K., Morinière, J., & Hendrich, L. (2020). A DNA barcode library for ground beetles of Germany: The genus *Pterostichus* Bonelli, 1810 and allied taxa (Insecta, Coleoptera, Carabidae). *ZooKeys*, 980, 93–117. https://doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.980.55979

Raworth, D. A., & Choi, M.-Y. (2001). Determining numbers of active carabid beetles per unit area from pitfall-trap data. *Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata*, 98(1), 95–108. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1570-7458.2001.00761.x

Renkema, J. M., Lynch, D. H., Cutler, G. C., MacKenzie, K., & Walde, S. J. (2012). Predation by *Pterostichus melanarius* (Illiger) (Coleoptera: Carabidae) on immature *Rhagoletis mendax* Curran (Diptera: Tephritidae) in semi-field and field conditions. *Biological Control*, 60(1), 46–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocontrol.2011.10.004

Reynolds, A. M., Leprêtre, L., & Bohan, D. A. (2013). Movement patterns of Tenebrio beetles demonstrate empirically that correlated-random-walks have similitude with a Lévy walk. *Scientific Reports*, 3(1), 3158. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep03158

Royle, J. A., & Converse, S. J. (2014). Hierarchical spatial capture-recapture models: Modelling population density in stratified populations. *Methods in Ecology and Evolution*, 5(1), 37–43. https://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210X.12135

Růžičková, J., Bérces, S., Ackov, S., & Elek, Z. (2021). Individual movement of large carabids as a link for activity density patterns in various forestry treatments. *Acta Zoologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae*, 67(1), 77–86. https://doi.org/10.17109/AZH.67.1.77.2021

Růžičková, J., & Elek, Z. (2021). Recording fine-scale movement of ground beetles by two methods: Potentials and methodological pitfalls. *Ecology and Evolution*, 11(13), 8562–8572. https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.7670

Růžičková, J., & Veselý, M. (2018). Movement activity and habitat use of *Carabus ullrichii* (Coleoptera: Carabidae): The forest edge as a mating site?: Habitat use of *Carabus ullrichii*. *Entomological Science*, 21(1), 76–83. https://doi.org/10.1111/ens.12286

Saska, P., Makowski, D., Bohan, D. A., & Van Der Werf, W. (2021). The effects of trapping effort and sources of variability on the estimation of activity-density and diversity of carabids in annual field crops by pitfall trapping; a meta-analysis. *Entomologia Generalis*, 41(6), 553–566. https://doi.org/10.1127/entomologia/2021/1211

Schlyter, F., Zhang, Q.-H., Liu, G.-T., & Ji, L.-Z. (2001). A successful case of pheromone mass trapping of the bark beetle *Ips duplicatus* in a Forest Island, analysed by 20-year time-series data. *Integrated Pest Management Reviews*, 6(3/4), 185–196. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1025767217376

Schmidt, M., Clough, Y., Schulz, W., Westphalen, A., & Tscharntke, T. (2006). Capture efficiency and preservation attributes of different fluids in pitfall traps. *Journal of Arachnology*, 34, 159–162.

Schtickzelle, N., Joiris, A., Van Dyck, H., & Baguette, M. (2007). Quantitative analysis of changes in movement behaviour within and outside habitat in a specialist butterfly. *BMC Evolutionary Biology*, 7(1), 4. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2148-7-4

Shaw, A. K. (2020). Causes and consequences of individual variation in animal movement. *Movement Ecology*, 8(1), 12. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40462-020-0197-x

Sunderland, K. (2002). Invertebrate pest control by carabids. In J. M. Holland (Ed.), *The agroecology of carabid beetles* (pp. 165–214). Intercept Limited.

The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. (2022). IUCN. https://www.iucnredlist.org

Thomas, C. F. G., Parkinson, L., & Marshall, E. J. P. (1998). Isolating the components of activity-density for the carabid beetle *Pterostichus melanarius* in farmland. *Oecologia*, 116(1-2), 103–112. https://doi.org/10.1007/s004420050568

Tuf, I. H., Dedek, P., & Veselý, M. (2012). Does the diurnal activity pattern of carabid beetles depend on season, ground temperature and habitat? *Archives of Biological Sciences*, 64(2), 721–732. https://doi.org/10.2298/ABS1202721T

Turchin, P. (1998). *Quantitative analysis of movement: Measuring and modeling population redistribution in animals and plants*. Sinauer Associates.

Ulyshen, M. D., & Hanula, J. L. (2009). Responses of arthropods to large-scale manipulations of dead wood in loblolly pine stands of the
southeastern United States. *Environmental Entomology*, **38**(4), 1005-1012. https://doi.org/10.1603/022.038.0407

Viswanathan, G. M., Da Luz, M. G. E., Raposo, E. P., & Stanley, H. E. (2011). *The physics of foraging: An introduction to random searches and biological encounters* (1st ed.). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511902680

Wallin, H., & Ekbom, B. S. (1988). Movements of carabid beetles (Coleoptera: Carabidae) inhabiting cereal fields: A field tracing study. *Oecologia*, **77**(1), 39–43. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00380922

Ward, D. F., New, T. R., & Yen, A. L. (2001). Effects of pitfall trap spacing on the abundance, richness and composition of invertebrate catches. *Journal of Insect Conservation*, **5**(1), 47–53. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1011317423622

Weiss, G. H. (1994). *Aspects and applications of the random walk*. North-Holland.

White, G. C., & Garrott, R. A. (1990). *Analysis of wildlife radio-tracking data*. Academic Press.

Williams, B. K., & Brown, E. D. (2019). Sampling and analysis frameworks for inference in ecology. *Methods in Ecology and Evolution*, *10*(11), 1832–1842. https://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210X.13279

Woodcock, B. (2005). Pitfall trapping in ecological studies. In S. Leather (Ed.), *Insect sampling in forest ecosystems* (pp. 37–57). Wiley-Blackwell.

Work, T. T., Buddle, C. M., Korinus, L. M., & Spence, J. R. (2002). Pitfall trap size and capture of three taxa of litter-dwelling arthropods: Implications for biodiversity studies. *Environmental Entomology*, **31**(3), 438–448. https://doi.org/10.1603/0046-225X-31.3.438

Yamashita, H., Togashi, K., & Kiritani, K. (2010). Sex-related difference in the ability of *Carabus lewisianus* (Coleoptera: Carabidae) to escape from pitfall traps. *The Canadian Entomologist*, **142**(6), 589–595. https://doi.org/10.4039/n10-013

Zhao, Z.-H., Shi, P.-J., Hui, C., Ouyang, F., Ge, F., & Li, B.-L. (2013). Solving the pitfalls of pitfall trapping: A two-circle method for density estimation of ground-dwelling arthropods. *Methods in Ecology and Evolution*, **4**(9), 865–871. https://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210X.12083

Zurell, D., Berger, U., Cabral, J. S., Jeltsch, F., Meynard, C. N., Münkemüller, T., Nehrbass, N., Pagel, J., Reineking, B., Schröder, B., & Grimm, V. (2010). The virtual ecologist approach: Simulating data and observers. *Oikos*, **119**(4), 622–635. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0706.2009.18284.x

**How to cite this article:** Ahmed, D. A., Beidas, A., Petrovskii, S. V., Bailey, J. D., Bonsall, M. B., Hood, A. S. C., Byers, J. A., Hudgins, E. J., Russell, J. C., Růžičková, J., Bodey, T. W., Renault, D., Bonnaud, E., Haubrock, P. J., Soto, I., & Haase, P. (2023). Simulating capture efficiency of pitfall traps based on sampling strategy and the movement of ground-dwelling arthropods. *Methods in Ecology and Evolution*, **14**, 2827–2843. https://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210X.14174