Hunting associations of American badgers (Taxidea taxus) and coyotes (Canis latrans) revealed by camera trapping

2018 ◽  
Vol 96 (7) ◽  
pp. 769-773
Author(s):  
Daniel Thornton ◽  
Arthur Scully ◽  
Travis King ◽  
Scott Fisher ◽  
Scott Fitkin ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Canis Latrans ◽  
Spatiotemporal Variation ◽  
Ground Squirrels ◽  
Camera Traps ◽  
Camera Trapping ◽  
Environmental Drivers ◽  
Foraging Efficiency ◽  
Taxidea Taxus ◽  
Space And Time ◽  
Foraging Associations

Interspecies foraging associations occur in a wide variety of vertebrate taxa and are maintained through gains in foraging efficiency and (or) predator avoidance. Despite their advantages, foraging associations often are variable in space and time and benefits may not accrue equally to all participants. In mammals, interspecies associations between solitary mammalian carnivores are rare. Coyotes (Canis latrans Say, 1823) and American badgers (Taxidea taxus (Schreber, 1777)) occasionally form hunting associations in pursuit of ground squirrels (Spermophilus armatus Kennicott, 1863), yet spatiotemporal variation in this association may be substantial. Better documentation of coyote–badger interactions across space and time will improve our understanding of the environmental drivers of this relationship and its benefit to both species. We used a broad-scale camera trapping array to document coyote–badger hunting associations. Out of 46 detections of badgers, we found five instances of hunting associations with coyotes, all of which occurred in mid- to late summer when ground squirrels were most active. Given our high rate of detection, these interactions are likely common on our study area. Habitat characteristics of the regions where we document coyote–badger interactions may have increased the likelihood of hunting associations. Our study demonstrates the effectiveness of camera traps for documenting this association and suggests that the coyote–badger system may be ideal for studying drivers of spatiotemporal variation in foraging associations.

scholarly journals Primer registro del tlalcoyote (Taxidea taxus) en la Reserva de la Biosfera Sierra Gorda, Guanajuato

2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 44
Author(s):  
J. Manuel Rangel-Rojas ◽  
Juan F. Charre-Medellín ◽  
Tiberio Monterrubio-Rico ◽  
Gloria Magaña-Cota
Keyword(s):  
Biosphere Reserve ◽  
Camera Trap ◽  
Management Plan ◽  
Camera Trapping ◽  
Taxidea Taxus ◽  
San Luis ◽  
Influence Area ◽  
San Luis Potosi ◽  
American Badger ◽  
Established Population

ResumenEn el estado de Guanajuato se confirmó la presencia de tlalcoyote (Taxidea taxus) mediante fototrampeo. Estos registros se localizan en la zona de influencia de la Reserva de la Biosfera Sierra Gorda de Guanajuato (RBSGG) y complementan ellistado de mamíferos reportados en la reserva. Los registros más cercanos de tlalcoyote se localizan a 90 km al noroeste en el estado de San Luis Potosíy a 105 km al suroeste del registro colectado en Silao, Guanajuato por Alfredo Dugès en 1874. Es fundamental incluir al tlalcoyote dentro del plan de manejo de la rbsgg con el fin de implementar acciones para su monitoreo y conservación a largo plazo, así como confirmar si en la región puede existir una población establecida y que no se trate de individuos errantes.Palabras clave: cámaras trampa, matorral xerófilo, mustelidae, Sierra Gorda, tejón norteamericano.AbstractIn Guanajuato state is confirmed the presence of tlalcoyote (Taxidea taxus) by camera trapping. These records are located in the influence area of the Sierra Gorda of Guanajuato Biosphere Reserve (RBSGG) and complement the list of mammals reported for the reserve. The nearest tlalcoyote records are located 90 km at northwest in San Luis Potosí state and 105 km at southwest from the recordcollected in Silao, Guanajuato by Alfredo Dugès in 1874. Is essential to include the tlalcoyote within the management plan of the rbsgg to implement actions of monitoring and conservation and confirm that in the region there may be an established population and it’s are not of errant individuals.Key words: American Badger, camera trap, mustelidae, Sierra Gorda, xerophytic scrub. 

Pits or pictures: a comparative study of camera traps and pitfall trapping to survey small mammals and reptiles

2019 ◽  
Vol 46 (2) ◽  
pp. 104 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shannon J. Dundas ◽  
Katinka X. Ruthrof ◽  
Giles E. St.J. Hardy ◽  
Patricia A. Fleming
Keyword(s):  
Community Composition ◽  
Small Mammals ◽  
Survey Methods ◽  
Infrared Camera ◽  
Camera Traps ◽  
Camera Trapping ◽  
Survey Method ◽  
Pitfall Traps ◽  
Pitfall Trapping ◽  
Trapping Methods

Context Camera trapping is a widely used monitoring tool for a broad range of species across most habitat types. Camera trapping has some major advantages over other trapping methods, such as pitfall traps, because cameras can be left in the field for extended periods of time. However, there is still a need to compare traditional trapping methods with newer techniques. Aims To compare trap rates, species richness and community composition of small mammals and reptiles by using passive, unbaited camera traps and pitfall traps. Methods We directly compared pitfall trapping (20-L buried buckets) with downward-facing infrared-camera traps (Reconyx) to survey small reptiles and mammals at 16 sites within a forested habitat in south-western Australia. We compared species captured using each method, as well as the costs associated with each. Key results Overall, we recorded 228 reptiles, 16 mammals and 1 frog across 640 pitfall trap-nights (38.3 animal captures per 100 trap-nights) compared to 271 reptiles and 265 mammals (for species likely to be captured in pitfall traps) across 2572 camera trap nights (20.8 animal captures per 100 trap-nights). When trap effort is taken into account, camera trapping was only 23% as efficient as pitfall trapping for small reptiles (mostly Scincidae), but was five times more efficient for surveying small mammals (Dasyuridae). Comparing only those species that were likely to be captured in pitfall traps, 13 species were recorded by camera trapping compared with 20 species recorded from pitfall trapping; however, we found significant (P<0.001) differences in community composition between the methods. In terms of cost efficacy, camera trapping was the more expensive method for our short, 4-month survey when taking the cost of cameras into consideration. Conclusions Applicability of camera trapping is dependent on the specific aims of the intended research. Camera trapping is beneficial where community responses to ecosystem disturbance are being tested. Live capture of small reptiles via pitfall trapping allows for positive species identification, morphological assessment, and collection of reference photos to help identify species from camera photos. Implications As stand-alone techniques, both survey methods under-represent the available species present in a region. The use of more than one survey method improves the scope of fauna community assessments.

Camera Trapping

2014 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Wildlife Management ◽  
Camera Traps ◽  
Camera Trapping ◽  
Biological Knowledge ◽  
Design Standards ◽  
Future Directions ◽  
Private And Public ◽  
Selection Of ◽  
Sydney Australia

Camera trapping in wildlife management and research is a growing global phenomenon. The technology is advancing very quickly, providing unique opportunities for collecting new biological knowledge. In order for fellow camera trap researchers and managers to share their knowledge and experience, the First International Camera Trapping Colloquium in Wildlife Management and Research was held in Sydney, Australia. Camera Trapping brings together papers from a selection of the presentations at the colloquium and provides a benchmark of the international developments and uses of camera traps for monitoring wildlife for research and management. Four major themes are presented: case studies demonstrating camera trapping for monitoring; the constraints and pitfalls of camera technologies; design standards and protocols for camera trapping surveys; and the identification, management and analyses of the myriad images that derive from camera trapping studies. The final chapter provides future directions for research using camera traps. Remarkable photographs are included, showing interesting, enlightening and entertaining images of animals 'doing their thing', making it an ideal reference for wildlife managers, conservation organisations, students and academics, pest animal researchers, private and public land managers, wildlife photographers and recreational hunters.

scholarly journals Wariness of coyotes to camera traps relative to social status and territory boundaries

2003 ◽  
Vol 81 (12) ◽  
pp. 2015-2025 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eveline S Séquin ◽  
Michael M Jaeger ◽  
Peter F Brussard ◽  
Reginald H Barrett
Keyword(s):  
Social Status ◽  
Human Activity ◽  
Canis Latrans ◽  
Primary Objective ◽  
Vantage Point ◽  
Camera Traps ◽  
Approach Response ◽  
Human Presence ◽  
Camera Systems ◽  
Set Up

The primary objective of this study was to develop a better understanding of coyote (Canis latrans) wariness particularly as it related to social status. We determined that territory status (controlling alpha, resident beta, or nonterritorial transient) affected vulnerability to photo-capture by infrared-triggered camera systems. All coyotes were wary of cameras, leading to relatively low numbers of photo-captures, most of which occurred at night. Alphas were significantly underrepresented in photographs and were never photo-captured inside their own territories. Betas were photographed inside and outside their territories, whereas transients were most often photographed on edges of territories. Both alphas and betas were photographed more often on territorial edges when outside their territories. We next addressed the question of how alphas were better able to avoid photo-capture. Alphas tracked human activity within their territories and presumably learned the locations of cameras as they were being set up. They did this either by approaching our location directly or by moving to a vantage point from where they could observe us. Betas and transients either withdrew or did not respond to human activity. Trials in which a dog was present were more likely to elicit an approach response from alphas. Avoidance of camera stations and the tracking of human activity implied wariness toward objects or locations resulting from their learned association with human presence rather than neophobia toward the objects themselves.

scholarly journals Can camera trapping provide accurate estimates of small mammal ( Myodes rutilus and Peromyscus maniculatus ) density in the boreal forest?

2015 ◽  
Vol 97 (1) ◽  
pp. 32-40 ◽  
Author(s):  
Petra Villette ◽  
Charles J. Krebs ◽  
Thomas S. Jung ◽  
Rudy Boonstra
Keyword(s):  
Boreal Forest ◽  
Small Mammals ◽  
Small Mammal ◽  
Peromyscus Maniculatus ◽  
Camera Traps ◽  
Camera Trapping ◽  
Deer Mice ◽  
Hit Rate ◽  
Myodes Rutilus ◽  
Feasible Alternative

Abstract Estimating population densities of small mammals (< 100g) has typically been carried out by intensive livetrapping, but this technique may be stressful to animals and the effort required is considerable. Here, we used camera traps to detect small mammal presence and assessed if this provided a feasible alternative to livetrapping for density estimation. During 2010–2012, we used camera trapping in conjunction with mark–recapture livetrapping to estimate the density of northern red-backed voles ( Myodes rutilus ) and deer mice ( Peromyscus maniculatus ) in the boreal forest of Yukon, Canada. Densities for these 2 species ranged from 0.29 to 9.21 animals/ha and 0 to 5.90 animals/ha, respectively, over the course of this investigation. We determined if hit window—the length of time used to group consecutive videos together as single detections or “hits”—has an effect on the correlation between hit rate and population density. The relationship between hit rate and density was sensitive to hit window duration for Myodes with R2 values ranging from 0.45 to 0.59, with a 90-min hit window generating the highest value. This relationship was not sensitive to hit window duration for Peromyscus , with R2 values for the tested hit windows ranging from 0.81 to 0.84. Our results indicate that camera trapping may be a robust method for estimating density of small rodents in the boreal forest when the appropriate hit window duration is selected and that camera traps may be a useful tool for the study of small mammals in boreal forest habitat.

Camera Trapping Technology and Related Advances: into the New Millennium

2020 ◽  
Vol 40 (3) ◽  
pp. 392-403 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paul D. Meek ◽  
Guy Ballard ◽  
Greg Falzon ◽  
Jaimen Williamson ◽  
Heath Milne ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Wildlife Management ◽  
Survey Methods ◽  
Camera Traps ◽  
Camera Trapping ◽  
Engineering Statistics ◽  
The Usa ◽  
Computational Sciences ◽  
Processing And Storage ◽  
Methods Analytical ◽  
Analytical Tools

Camera trapping has advanced significantly in Australia over the last two decades. These devices have become more versatile and the associated computer technology has also progressed dramatically since 2011. In the USA, the hunting industry drives most changes to camera traps; however the scientific fraternity has been instrumental in incorporating computational engineering, statistics and technology into camera trap use for wildlife research. New survey methods, analytical tools (including software for image processing and storage) and complex algorithms to analyse images have been developed. For example, pattern and texture analysis and species and individual facial recognition are now possible. In the next few decades, as technology evolves and ecological and computational sciences intertwine, new tools and devices will emerge into the market. Here we outline several projects that are underway to incorporate camera traps and associated technologies into existing and new tools for wildlife management. These also have significant implications for broader wildlife management and research.

Is camera-trapping an efficient method for surveying mammals in Neotropical forests? A case study in south-eastern Brazil

2005 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
pp. 121-125 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ana Carolina Srbek-Araujo ◽  
Adriano Garcia Chiarello
Keyword(s):  
Atlantic Forest ◽  
Indirect Evidence ◽  
Camera Traps ◽  
Camera Trapping ◽  
Neotropical Forests ◽  
South Eastern ◽  
Eastern Brazil ◽  
Line Transects

Although highly diverse (Fonseca et al. 1996), the Atlantic forest mammal fauna is still poorly known, with very few sites exhaustively inventoried or subjected to long-term studies (Passamani et al. 2000). Although the first surveys using camera traps were carried out in the 1920s (e.g. Chapman 1927), most studies are rather recent (Karanth & Nichols 1998). This is not different in Brazil, where few studies have been published (Marques & Ramos 2001, Santos-Filho & Silva 2002, Silveira et al. 2003, Trolle 2003, Trolle & Kéry 2003). Given this, the objective of this paper is to assess the efficiency of camera trapping as an inventory technique for Neotropical forests in general and Atlantic forest in particular. The study was conducted at the Santa Lúcia Biological Station (SLBS), a biologically rich Atlantic Forest preserve located in south-eastern Brazil (Mendes & Padovan 2000) where mammals have been intensively live-trapped, observed from line-transects or had indirect evidence of their presence (faeces, footprints, scratches, etc.) recorded in earlier years (Passamani et al. 2000).

Description of Sarcocystis campestris sp. n. (Protozoa: Sarcocystidae): a parasite of the badger Taxidea taxus with experimental transmission to the Richardson's ground squirrel, Spermophilus richardsonii

1983 ◽  
Vol 61 (2) ◽  
pp. 370-377 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard J. Cawthorn ◽  
Gary A. Wobeser ◽  
Alvin A. Gajadhar
Keyword(s):  
Ground Squirrel ◽  
Prepatent Period ◽  
Ground Squirrels ◽  
Intermediate Hosts ◽  
Patent Period ◽  
Sporocyst Residuum ◽  
Experimental Transmission ◽  
Taxidea Taxus ◽  
Spermophilus Richardsonii ◽  
Large Round

Sarcocystis campestris sp. n. (Protozoa: Sarcocystidae) is an heteroxenous coccidium with badgers (Taxidea taxus) as natural and experimental definitive hosts and Richardson's ground squirrels (Spermophilus richardsonii) as experimental intermediate hosts. Free sporocysts (10.2 × 8.0 μm with a large, round sporocyst residuum consisting of a single refractile granule), obtained from intestinal scrapings of badgers (carcasses frozen 2 years at −20 °C), were orally administered to juvenile Richardson's ground squirrels. Acute fatal sarcocystosis developed in some squirrels at 11–13 days postinoculation (p.i.). Meronts (second generation) were present 9–12 days p.i. in the vascular endothelium of many tissues (especially the lungs). Cysts developed in skeletal muscle, contained metrocytes (7 × 5 μm) 30 days p.i., and beginning 46 days p.i., bradyzoites (12.0 × 3.5 μm) were present. Cysts were macroscopic as early as 258 days p.i. Squirrel carcasses containing cysts (76 days p.i.) of S. campestris sp. n. were fed to Sarcocystis-free badgers. The prepatent period was 9 days and the patent period at least 13 days. Both badgers were ill early in the patent period and passed unformed feces during the patent period. Free sporocysts were 10.2 × 8.0 μm and each had an elongate sporocyst residuum containing numerous small refractile granules.

Killing technique of North American badgers preying on Richardson's ground squirrels

2001 ◽  
Vol 79 (11) ◽  
pp. 2109-2113 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gail R Michener ◽  
Andrew N Iwaniuk
Keyword(s):  
North American ◽  
Prey Size ◽  
Ground Squirrels ◽  
Thoracic Cavity ◽  
Internal Organs ◽  
Small Prey ◽  
Taxidea Taxus ◽  
Spermophilus Richardsonii ◽  
Southern Alberta

Carcasses of 13 Richardson's ground squirrels (Spermophilus richardsonii) cached during autumn by North American badgers (Taxidea taxus) in southern Alberta, Canada, were inspected to determine the capture and killing technique. Regardless of prey size (251–651 g) or torpor status (normothermic or torpid), badgers killed ground squirrels with a single grasping bite directed dorsally or laterally to the thorax. The canines and third upper incisors of badgers generally bruised the skin without puncturing it, but caused extensive hematomas on the thoracic musculature and penetrated between the ribs, with associated breakage of ribs and hemorrhaging in the thoracic cavity. Internal organs and bones other than ribs were usually not damaged. Thoracic bites, rather than nape or throat bites, are used by several mustelids, including North American badgers, when capturing small prey (<10% of the predator's mass).

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document