work-time because she had done more than half 
of another shared project, so I did it. 
The average specimen total for the 42 pitfalls was 
114, but some pitfalls had only a few dozen 
specimens while one pitfall had 600! 
The 4804 specimens collected were dominated by 
springtails ( collembola ) of which 2180 were 
sorted. Other common groups were ants (854), 
mites (527—and that's excluding super-tiny ones 
and ones attached to other invertebrates), 
beetles (327 adult 34 larvae), flies (309 adults 5 
larvae), spiders (175) and wasps (133). 
Scorpions were present in a lot of traps but in low 
numbers (68 specimens total), likewise for 
orthoptera (crickets and grasshoppers—37) and 
other groups seen now and then included bugs 
(58 scale insects, 22 true bugs and two hoppers) 
and moths (10 adults and 22 caterpillars). 
As usual with these samples, there was a "long 
tail" of uncommon groups producing a handful of 
specimens each, in this case amphipods (10), 
millipedes (7), harvestmen (6), thrips (6), 
psocoptera (barklice—2), fleas (2), 
pseudoscorpions (1), and yes, even one solitary 
snail (it was Parolaoma servilis, an introduced 
New Zealand species). 
Our anti-vertebrate protective measures worked 
very well, with only two skinks and a frog coming 
to grief in this year's survey. 
We haven't done the stats yet, but there appear 
to be big differences between the burnt sites and 
the unburnt sites for some groups. Adult beetles, 
for instance, were seven times more common in 
the unburnt sites. Mites, spiders, wasps and 
caterpillars also tended to give the burnt habitats 
a wide berth, but ants were much more common 
at the burnt sites (except for the one unburnt site 
which must have been near an ant's nest as it had 
over 300 of them!) 
For the commonest group, collembola, there was 
not much difference in total numbers between 
the burnt and unburnt sites, but the collembola 
collected include both native and introduced 
species, and if they were looked at by species, it's 
likely that some patterns would emerge. We'll be 
sorting some groups to try to take them to a finer 
level of sorting and look for further patterns. 
None of the patterns found prove that the groups 
concerned respond that way to fire in the area—it 
could in theory mean they're scarce in the burnt 
area for reasons not related to the fire. 
What we can do now is see what happens in next 
year's sorting—in the parts that have since been 
burnt, will we see similar differences from last 
year to those we see between burnt and unburnt 
sites this year? 
In the sites that were burnt before this year's 
survey, will the results become more similar to 
those from the unburnt areas as the sites regrow? 
The June excursion to the botany lab. 
Thanks to everyone who helped with the sorting. 
[Ed's note: See the July issue of the TFNC Bulletin 
for Abbey Throssal's description of the great day 
had by all who attended the sorting in the botany 
lab.] 
Our Potential to Spread Plant and Animal Disease—A Reminder to Field Nats 
Michael Driessen 
ield Nats like to get off the beaten track and 
explore the natural world. This puts us in a 
high risk category for the potential to spread 
diseases that could be carried in soil on our boots 
or other equipment. Two diseases of particular 
concern are Toot rot' and chytrid. 
Root rot is caused by the plant pathogen 
Phytophthora cinnamomi and is known to affect 
about 120 native plants in Tasmania, particularly 
in moorland, heathland and dry forest. 
Chytrid is a fungus, Batrachochytrium 
dendrobatidis, that has been linked with the 
extinctions of frog species around the world 
Tasmanian Field Naturalists Club 
BULLETIN 340 October 2010 p5 
