High variation in camera trap-model sensitivity for surveying mammal species in northern Australia

2018 ◽  
Vol 45 (7) ◽  
pp. 578 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jaime Heiniger ◽  
Graeme Gillespie
Keyword(s):  
Detection Probability ◽  
High Sensitivity ◽  
Camera Trap ◽  
Camera Traps ◽  
Northern Australia ◽  
Mammal Species ◽  
Survey Tool ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Event Trigger ◽  
The Difference

Context The use of camera traps as a wildlife survey tool has rapidly increased, and understanding the strengths and weaknesses of the technology is imperative to assess the degree to which research objectives are met. Aims We evaluated the differences in performance among three Reconyx camera-trap models, namely, a custom-modified high-sensitivity PC850, and unmodified PC850 and HC550. Methods We undertook a controlled field trial to compare the performance of the three models on Groote Eylandt, Northern Territory, by observing the ability of each model to detect the removal of a bait by native mammals. We compared variation in detecting the known event, trigger numbers, proportion of false triggers and the difference in detection probability of small to medium-sized mammals. Key results The high-sensitivity PC850 model detected bait take 75% of the time, as opposed to 33.3% and 20% for the respective unmodified models. The high-sensitivity model also increased the detection probability of the smallest mammal species from 0.09 to 0.34. However, there was no significant difference in detection probability for medium-sized mammals. Conclusions Despite the three Reconyx camera models having similar manufacturer-listed specifications, they varied substantially in their performance. The high-sensitivity model vastly improved the detection of known events and the detection probability of small mammals in northern Australia. Implications Failure to consider variation in camera-trap performance can lead to inaccurate conclusions when multiple camera models are used. Consequently, researchers should carefully consider the parameters and capabilities of camera models in study designs. Camera models and their configurations should be reported in methods, and variation in detection probabilities among different models and configurations should be incorporated into analyses.

scholarly journals Mammal diversity among vertical strata and the evaluation of a survey technique in a central Amazonian forest

2021 ◽  
Vol 61 ◽  
pp. e20216133
Author(s):  
Alexander Roldán Arévalo-Sandi ◽  
André Luis Sousa Gonçalves ◽  
Kota Onizawa ◽  
Tsuneaki Yabe ◽  
Wilson Roberto Spironello
Keyword(s):  
Camera Trap ◽  
Camera Traps ◽  
Sampling Effort ◽  
Mammal Species ◽  
Lowland Forest ◽  
Survey Technique ◽  
Terrestrial Habitats ◽  
Common Technique ◽  
The Difference ◽  
Mammal Diversity

Mammal groups have a vast variety of habitats, which include aquatic, aerial, arboreal, and terrestrial. For terrestrial habitats, camera traps are used as a common technique to record mammals and other vertebrates and have been recently utilized to observe arboreal animals as well. Here, we compare the difference in mammal diversity between floor and canopy strata and evaluate the use of camera trapping in a lowland forest in central Amazon. We installed nine paired camera traps, one in the canopy stratum and other in the floor stratum, in the Alto Cuieiras Biological Reserve (Brazilian Amazon). With a sampling effort of 720 camera-days, we recorded 30 mammal species: nine in canopy strata, 14 in floor strata, and seven in scansorial strata (sharing both strata). On the forest floor, the species with the greatest abundance was Myoprocta acouchy; in the canopy, Isothrix paguros had the greatest abundance; and among the scansorial species, Proechymis sp. was the most abundant. Our results show the differences in mammal diversity between floor and canopy strata; canopy strata contained more small and frugivorous mammals. Although we obtained a relatively low sampling effort with the camera-trap method compared with other studies utilizing different techniques, our results were especially similar to those of previous studies that worked with canopy and floor strata. Thus, camera trap can be very effective for recording short periods of time, and this method is less physically exhaustive and expensive for researchers to study vertical strata.

Multiple cameras required to reliably detect feral cats in northern Australian tropical savanna: an evaluation of sampling design when using camera traps

2015 ◽  
Vol 42 (8) ◽  
pp. 642 ◽  
Author(s):  
Danielle Stokeld ◽  
Anke S. K. Frank ◽  
Brydie Hill ◽  
Jenni Low Choy ◽  
Terry Mahney ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Camera Trap ◽  
Camera Traps ◽  
Sampling Effort ◽  
Tropical Savanna ◽  
Northern Australia ◽  
Ecological Data ◽  
Detection Rates ◽  
Feral Cats ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Trapping Method

Context Feral cats are a major cause of mammal declines and extinctions in Australia. However, cats are elusive and obtaining reliable ecological data is challenging. Although camera traps are increasingly being used to study feral cats, their successful use in northern Australia has been limited. Aims We evaluated the efficacy of camera-trap sampling designs for detecting cats in the tropical savanna of northern Australia. We aimed to develop a camera-trapping method that would yield detection probabilities adequate for precise occupancy estimates. Methods First, we assessed the influence of two micro-habitat placements and three lure types on camera-trap detection rates of feral cats. Second, using multiple camera traps at each site, we examined the relationship between sampling effort and detection probability by using a multi-method occupancy model. Key results We found no significant difference in detection rates of feral cats using a variety of lures and micro-habitat placement. The mean probability of detecting a cat on one camera during one week of sampling was very low (p = 0.15) and had high uncertainty. However, the probability of detecting a cat on at least one of five cameras deployed concurrently on a site was 48% higher (p = 0.22) and had a greater precision. Conclusions The sampling effort required to achieve detection rates adequate to infer occupancy of feral cats by camera trap is considerably higher in northern Australia than has been observed elsewhere in Australia. Adequate detection of feral cats in the tropical savanna of northern Australia will necessitate inclusion of more camera traps and a longer survey duration. Implications Sampling designs using camera traps need to be rigorously trialled and assessed to optimise detection of the target species for different Australian biomes. A standard approach is suggested for detecting feral cats in northern Australian savannas.

More haste, less speed: pilot study suggests camera trap detection zone could be more important than trigger speed to maximise species detections

2018 ◽  
Vol 40 (1) ◽  
pp. 118 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bronwyn A. Fancourt ◽  
Mark Sweaney ◽  
Don B. Fletcher
Keyword(s):  
Pilot Study ◽  
Wildlife Management ◽  
Detection Probability ◽  
Field Trials ◽  
Camera Trap ◽  
Camera Traps ◽  
Detection Zone ◽  
Trigger Time ◽  
Management Actions ◽  
Context Specific

Camera traps are being used increasingly for wildlife management and research. When choosing camera models, practitioners often consider camera trigger speed to be one of the most important factors to maximise species detections. However, factors such as detection zone will also influence detection probability. As part of a rabbit eradication program, we performed a pilot study to compare rabbit (Oryctolagus cuniculus) detections using the Reconyx PC900 (faster trigger speed, narrower detection zone) and the Ltl Acorn Ltl-5310A (slower trigger speed, wider detection zone). Contrary to our predictions, the slower-trigger-speed cameras detected rabbits more than twice as often as the faster-trigger-speed cameras, suggesting that the wider detection zone more than compensated for the relatively slower trigger time. We recommend context-specific field trials to ensure cameras are appropriate for the required purpose. Missed detections could lead to incorrect inferences and potentially misdirected management actions.

Evaluation of risks for two native mammal species from feral cat baiting in monsoonal tropical northern Australia

2018 ◽  
Vol 45 (6) ◽  
pp. 518 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jaime Heiniger ◽  
Skye F. Cameron ◽  
Graeme Gillespie
Keyword(s):  
Rhodamine B ◽  
Native Species ◽  
Field Trials ◽  
Camera Traps ◽  
Northern Australia ◽  
Target Species ◽  
Mammal Species ◽  
Feral Cat ◽  
Feral Cats ◽  
Dry Tropics

Context Feral cats are a significant threat to native wildlife and broad-scale control is required to reduce their impacts. Two toxic baits developed for feral cats, Curiosity® and Hisstory®, have been designed to reduce the risk of baiting to certain non-target species. These baits involve encapsulating the toxin within a hard-shelled delivery vehicle (HSDV) and placing it within a meat attractant. Native animals that chew their food more thoroughly are predicted to avoid poisoning by eating around the HSDV. This prediction has not been tested on wild native mammals in the monsoonal wet–dry tropics of the Northern Territory. Aim The aim of this research was to determine whether northern quolls (Dasyurus hallucatus) and northern brown bandicoots (Isoodon macrourus) would take feral cat baits and ingest the HSDV under natural conditions on Groote Eylandt. Methods We hand-deployed 120 non-toxic baits with a HSDV that contained a biomarker, Rhodamine B, which stains animal whiskers when ingested. The species responsible for bait removal was determined with camera traps, and HSDV ingestion was measured by evaluating Rhodamine B in whiskers removed from animals trapped after baiting. Key results During field trials, 95% of baits were removed within 5 days. Using camera-trap images, we identified the species responsible for taking baits on 65 occasions. All 65 confirmed takes were by native species, with northern quolls taking 42 baits and northern brown bandicoots taking 17. No quolls and only one bandicoot ingested the HSDV. Conclusion The use of the HSDV reduces the potential for quolls and bandicoots to ingest a toxin when they consume feral cat baits. However, high bait uptake by non-target species may reduce the efficacy of cat baiting in some areas. Implications The present study highlighted that in the monsoonal wet–dry tropics, encapsulated baits are likely to minimise poisoning risk to certain native species that would otherwise eat meat baits. However, further research may be required to evaluate risks to other non-target species. Given the threat to biodiversity from feral cats, we see it as critical to continue testing Hisstory® and Curiosity® in live-baiting trials in northern Australia.

The effect of camera-trap viewshed obstruction on wildlife detection: implications for inference

2020 ◽  
Vol 47 (2) ◽  
pp. 158 ◽  
Author(s):  
Remington J. Moll ◽  
Waldemar Ortiz-Calo ◽  
Jonathon D. Cepek ◽  
Patrick D. Lorch ◽  
Patricia M. Dennis ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Image Data ◽  
Camera Trap ◽  
Camera Traps ◽  
Mammal Species ◽  
Ecological Processes ◽  
Detection Rates ◽  
Management Application ◽  
Efficiency And Effectiveness ◽  
Steep Slopes ◽  
Wildlife Detection

Abstract ContextCamera traps are one of the most popular tools used to study wildlife worldwide. Numerous recent studies have evaluated the efficiency and effectiveness of camera traps as a research tool. Nonetheless, important aspects of camera-trap methodology remain in need of critical investigation. One such issue relates to camera-trap viewshed visibility, which is often compromised in the field by physical obstructions (e.g. trees) or topography (e.g. steep slopes). The loss of visibility due to these obstructions could affect wildlife detection rates, with associated implications for study inference and management application. AimsWe aimed to determine the effect of camera-trap viewshed obstruction on wildlife detection rates for a suite of eight North American species that vary in terms of ecology, commonness and body size. MethodsWe deployed camera traps at 204 sites throughout an extensive semi-urban park system in Cleveland, Ohio, USA, from June to September 2016. At each site, we quantified camera-trap viewshed obstruction by using a cover-board design. We then modelled the effects of obstruction on wildlife detection rates for the eight focal species. Key resultsWe found that detection rates significantly decreased with an increasing viewshed obstruction for five of the eight species, including both larger and smaller mammal species (white-tailed deer, Odocoileus virginianus, and squirrels, Sciurus sp., respectively). The number of detections per week per camera decreased two- to three-fold as visibility at a camera site decreased from completely free of obstruction to mostly obstructed. ConclusionsThese results imply that wildlife detection rates are influenced by site-level viewshed obstruction for a variety of species, and sometimes considerably so. ImplicationsResearchers using camera traps should address the potential for this effect to ensure robust inference from wildlife image data. Accounting for viewshed obstruction is critical when interpreting detection rates as indices of abundance or habitat use because variation in detection rate could be an artefact of site-level viewshed obstruction rather than due to underlying ecological processes.

The effectiveness and cost of camera traps for surveying small reptiles and critical weight range mammals: a comparison with labour-intensive complementary methods

2015 ◽  
Vol 42 (5) ◽  
pp. 414 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dustin J. Welbourne ◽  
Christopher MacGregor ◽  
David Paull ◽  
David B. Lindenmayer
Keyword(s):  
Monitoring Program ◽  
Camera Traps ◽  
Camera Trapping ◽  
Mammal Species ◽  
Critical Weight ◽  
Complementary Methods ◽  
Incidence Data ◽  
Trapping Method ◽  
The Difference

Context Biodiversity studies often require wildlife researchers to survey multiple species across taxonomic classes. To detect terrestrial squamate and mammal species, often multiple labour-intensive survey techniques are required. Camera traps appear to be more effective and cost-efficient than labour-intensive methods for detecting some mammal species. Recent developments have seen camera traps used for detecting terrestrial squamates. However, the performance of camera traps to survey terrestrial squamate and mammal species simultaneously has not been evaluated. Aim We compared the effectiveness and financial cost of a camera trapping method capable of detecting small squamates and mammals with a set of labour-intensive complementary methods, which have been used in a long-term monitoring program. Methods We compared two survey protocols: one employed labour-intensive complementary methods consisting of cage traps, Elliott traps and artificial refuges; the second utilised camera traps. Comparisons were made of the total number of species detected, species detectability, and cost of executing each type of survey. Key results Camera traps detected significantly more target species per transect than the complementary methods used. Although camera traps detected more species of reptile per transect, the difference was not significant. For the initial survey, camera traps were more expensive than the complementary methods employed, but for realistic cost scenarios camera traps were less expensive in the long term. Conclusions Camera traps are more effective and less expensive than the complementary methods used for acquiring incidence data on terrestrial squamate and mammal species. Implications The camera trapping method presented does not require customised equipment; thus, wildlife managers can use existing camera trapping equipment to detect cryptic mammal and squamate species simultaneously.

Camera traps in the canopy: surveying wildlife at tree hollow entrances

2016 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
pp. 48 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nigel Cotsell ◽  
Karl Vernes
Keyword(s):  
Anthropogenic Disturbance ◽  
New South ◽  
Camera Trap ◽  
Camera Traps ◽  
North East ◽  
Tree Hollows ◽  
South Wales ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Site Disturbance ◽  
Tree Hollow

This is the first comprehensive camera trap study to examine hollow usage by wildlife in the canopy of trees. Eighty cameras directed at tree hollows were deployed across eight sites in nine species of eucalypt in north-east New South Wales. In total, 38 species (including 21 birds, 9 mammals and 8 reptiles) were recorded at hollow entrances over a three-month period. There was a significant difference between wildlife hollow usage associated with site disturbance and tree growth stage (ANOSIM, P > 0.05); however, there was no significant difference associated with tree hollow diameter (ANOSIM, P > 0.05). The level of anthropogenic disturbance at each site, including vegetation modification of the understorey, was a significant predictor of species presence. Despite the limitations of using camera traps in the canopy of trees this study demonstrates the potential to garner useful insights into the ecology and behaviour of arboreal wildlife.

scholarly journals Horizontal or vertical? Camera trap orientations and recording modes for detecting potoroos, bandicoots and pademelons

2014 ◽  
Vol 36 (1) ◽  
pp. 60 ◽  
Author(s):  
Brendan D. Taylor ◽  
Ross L. Goldingay ◽  
John M. Lindsay
Keyword(s):  
Detection Probability ◽  
New South ◽  
Population Monitoring ◽  
Camera Trap ◽  
Probability Of Detection ◽  
Camera Traps ◽  
North East ◽  
South Wales ◽  
Detection Probabilities ◽  
The Stability

Camera traps can detect rare and cryptic species, and may enable description of the stability of populations of threatened species. We investigated the relative performance of cameras oriented horizontally or vertically, and recording mode (still and video) to detect the vulnerable long-nosed potoroo (Potorous tridactylus) as a precursor to population monitoring. We established camera traps for periods of 13–21 days across 21 sites in Richmond Range National Park in north-east New South Wales. Each camera trap set consisted of three KeepGuard KG680V cameras directed at a bait container – one horizontal and one vertical camera in still mode and one horizontal camera in video mode. Potoroos and bandicoots (Perameles nasuta and Isoodon macrourus) were detected at 14 sites and pademelons (Thylogale stigmatica and T. thetis) were detected at 19 sites. We used program Presence to compare detection probabilities for each camera category. The detection probability for all three taxa groups was lowest for the vertical still and similar for the horizontal cameras. The detection probability (horizontal still) was highest for the potoroos (0.43) compared with the bandicoots (0.16) and pademelons (0.25). We estimate that the horizontal stills camera could achieve a 95% probability of detection of a potoroo within 6 days compared with 8 days using a vertical stills camera. This suggests that horizontal cameras in still mode have great potential for monitoring the dynamics of this potoroo population.

Can camera trapping be used to accurately survey and monitor the Hastings River mouse (Pseudomys oralis)?

2016 ◽  
Vol 38 (1) ◽  
pp. 44 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paul D. Meek ◽  
Karl Vernes
Keyword(s):  
Small Mammals ◽  
Small Mammal ◽  
Survey Methods ◽  
Camera Trap ◽  
Camera Traps ◽  
Camera Trapping ◽  
Common Element ◽  
Computer Assisted ◽  
Survey Tool ◽  
Wide Range

Camera trapping is increasingly recognised as a survey tool akin to conventional small mammal survey methods such as Elliott trapping. While there are many cost and resource advantages of using camera traps, their adoption should not compromise scientific rigour. Rodents are a common element of most small mammal surveys. In 2010 we deployed camera traps to measure whether the endangered Hastings River mouse (Pseudomys oralis) could be detected and identified with an acceptable level of precision by camera traps when similar-looking sympatric small mammals were present. A comparison of three camera trap models revealed that camera traps can detect a wide range of small mammals, although white flash colour photography was necessary to capture characteristic features of morphology. However, the accurate identification of some small mammals, including P. oralis, was problematic; we conclude therefore that camera traps alone are not appropriate for P. oralis surveys, even though they might at times successfully detect them. We discuss the need for refinement of the methodology, further testing of camera trap technology, and the development of computer-assisted techniques to overcome problems associated with accurate species identification.

The history of wildlife camera trapping as a survey tool in Australia

2015 ◽  
Vol 37 (1) ◽  
pp. 1 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paul D. Meek ◽  
Guy-Anthony Ballard ◽  
Karl Vernes ◽  
Peter J. S. Fleming
Keyword(s):  
Quantitative Research ◽  
Reaction Times ◽  
Historical Review ◽  
Camera Trap ◽  
Recent Change ◽  
Camera Traps ◽  
Camera Trapping ◽  
Survey Tool ◽  
Trapping Methods ◽  
Effective Models

This paper provides an historical review of the technological evolution of camera trapping as a zoological survey tool in Australia. Camera trapping in Australia began in the 1950s when purpose-built remotely placed cameras were used in attempts to rediscover the thylacine (Thylacinus cynocephalus). However, camera traps did not appear in Australian research papers and Australasian conference proceedings until 1989–91, and usage became common only after 2008, with an exponential increase in usage since 2010. Initially, Australian publications under-reported camera trapping methods, often failing to provide fundamental details about deployment and use. However, rigour in reporting of key methods has increased during the recent widespread adoption of camera trapping. Our analysis also reveals a change in camera trap use in Australia, from simple presence–absence studies, to more theoretical and experimental approaches related to population ecology, behavioural ecology, conservation biology and wildlife management. Practitioners require further research to refine and standardise camera trap methods to ensure that unbiased and scientifically rigorous data are obtained from quantitative research. The recent change in emphasis of camera trapping research use is reflected in the decreasing range of camera trap models being used in Australian research. Practitioners are moving away from less effective models that have slow reaction times between detection and image capture, and inherent bias in detectability of fauna, to more expensive brands that offer faster speeds, greater functionality and more reliability.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document