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 ◽  
...  

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.

2019 ◽  
Vol 46 (2) ◽  
pp. 104 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shannon J. Dundas ◽  
Katinka X. Ruthrof ◽  
Giles E. St.J. Hardy ◽  
Patricia A. Fleming

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 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.


2016 ◽  
Vol 38 (1) ◽  
pp. 44 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paul D. Meek ◽  
Karl Vernes

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.


2016 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
pp. 99-106 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel U. Greene ◽  
Robert A. McCleery ◽  
Lindsay M. Wagner ◽  
Elina P. Garrison

Abstract Fox squirrel Sciurus niger populations in the southeastern United States appear to have declined, and 3 (S. n. cinereus, S. n. shermani, and S. n. avicennia) of the 10 subspecies are currently listed with a conservation status of protection. Efforts to conserve and manage fox squirrels in the southeastern United States are constrained by difficulties in studying their populations because of low densities and low detectability. There is a need for an effective survey method to fill knowledge gaps on southeastern fox squirrel ecology. To address this need and to identify a cost-effective and reliable technique to survey and monitor southeastern fox squirrel populations, we compared four survey methods across seasons: live-trapping; camera-trapping; point counts; and line-transect surveys, in regard to whether a detection occurred at a survey point, the total number of detections at a survey point, and the total cost for each method. We assessed the effectiveness of capture and detection methods and the influence of seasonality using generalized linear mixed models. We found camera-trapping to be the most effective survey method for assessing the presence and distribution of southeastern fox squirrels. In total, camera-traps produced significantly more detections (n = 223) of fox squirrels than all other methods combined (n = 84), with most detections occurring in spring (n = 97) and the fewest in the autumn (n = 60). Furthermore, we detected fox squirrels at more survey points with camera-traps (73%) than all other methods (63%), and we identified 16% more individuals from camera-trap photographs than live-trapped. We recommend future monitoring of southeastern fox squirrels to be conducted using camera-trapping during the spring unless handling of animals is needed for other research purposes.


2013 ◽  
Vol 35 (1) ◽  
pp. 123 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paul D. Meek ◽  
Guy-Anthony Ballard ◽  
Peter J. S. Fleming

As the use of camera traps in wildlife management in Australia rapidly increases, government agencies, private enterprises, universities and individuals are investing considerable amounts of money in camera trap technology for research, monitoring and recreation. Often camera traps need to be placed along vehicle tracks or in obvious locations to detect animal activity. Consequently, units are frequently highly visible and therefore easily located by would-be thieves. We describe a field-tested security post design that increases security for both camera traps and data, whilst also offering a means of standardising placement.


2018 ◽  
Vol 40 (1) ◽  
pp. 118 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bronwyn A. Fancourt ◽  
Mark Sweaney ◽  
Don B. Fletcher

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.


Author(s):  
Alberto Quadrio Curzio

Riassunto. – La scienza economica e la realtà economica si muovono insieme, in quanto la prima si propone di spiegare la seconda, attraverso l’interpretazione del passato e del presente, cercando di governare il presente stesso, anticipando e cercando di governare il suo futuro. La scienza economica ha lo scopo di conoscere la realtà economica per accrescere il controllo umano su di essa. Per questo aspetti positivi e normativi sono parte della natura della scienza economica, in quanto regole e piani di azione e di controllo. Il quesito se la scienza economica sia più vicina alle scienze matematiche, o alle scienze morali, o alle empiriche, è stato oggetto di discussione da molto tempo. Non è questo il luogo per iniziare nuovamente una simile interessante discussione, ma si può affermare che la scienza economica possiede il suo proprio metodo, che si avvale di altre scienze e altri metodi che sono meglio adatti a problemi particolari. Ma in definitiva la scienza economica ha i suoi propri metodi che includono simultaneamente almeno tre elementi:(i) elementi teorico-analitici;(ii) elementi stilizzati dei fatti economici (elementi teorico-fattuali);(iii) elementi di politica economica (elementi teorico-normativi).Pertanto, se per scienza economica intendiamo un sistema “completo” di conoscenza allora possiamo dire che tre elementi parziali, complementari e necessari contribuiscono a tale costruzione: quelli teorico-analitici; quelli teorico-fattuali; quelli teorico-normativi. Il riferimento all’attributo ‘teorico’ mostra la loro generalità, mentre la specificazione (analitico, empirico, normativo) mostra la loro incompletezza. Tale “definizione” è consistente con le linee generali di pensiero che definiscono la scienza economica come un insieme di teorie, modelli, teoremi in cui metodi diversi (teorico-analitici, teorico-fattuali, teorico-normativi) e strumenti diversi (matematici, econometrici, storici, logici, analogico-acquisitivi presi da altre scienze, ecc.) hanno contribuito con ruoli diversi alla loro specificazione e costruzione, al fine di comprendere e controllare i fatti economici. In quanto segue vedremo come gli elementi sopra richiamati e, in particolare, gli strumenti analitici hanno aiutato a definire alcune fra le più importanti teorie generali dell’economia. Cercheremo inoltre di spiegare quali problemi oggi hanno bisogno di essere risolti per evitare la frammentazione di questa scienza unitaria, in quanto se tale già forte frammentazione aumentasse, allora l’economia fallirebbe nel suo scopo principale, che è spiegare e cercare di governare la realtà.***Abstract.– Economic science and economic reality move on together as the first mainly aims at explaining the second, by interpreting its past and the present, trying to rule the present itself, anticipating and trying to rule its future. Economic science aims at knowing economic reality in order to increase human control over it. That is why positive and normative aspects, being these latter rules and plans of action and control, are part of what economic science is about. The question whether economic science is closer to the mathematical sciences, moral sciences or empirical ones has been discussed for a long time. This is not the place to start such an interesting discussion again, but let us just assert that economic science does have its own method, which also borrows from other sciences and other methods that better suit particular problems. But at the end economic science has its own methods which include at least three elements simultaneously:(i) analytical-theoretical elements;(ii) stylized elements of economic facts (factual-theoretical elements);(iii) policy elements (normative-theoretical elements).Then, if by economic science we mean a ‘complete’ system of cognitions, we can say that three partial, complementary and necessary elements contribute to such a construction: the analytical-theoretical ones; the factual-theoretical ones; the normative-theoretical ones. The reference to the “theoretical” attribute shows their generality, while the specification (empirical, analytical, normative) shows their non-completeness. Such “definition” is consistent with the general lines of thought defining economic science as a set of theories, models, theorems where different methods (analytical-theoretical; factual-theoretical; normative-theoretical) and different tools (mathematical, econometric, historical, logical, analogic-acquisitive from other sciences, etc.) have contributed with variab1e roles to their specification and construction to understand and control economic facts. In what follows we will see the way the afore-mentioned elements and, in particular, the analytical tools have helped in defining some of the most important general theories in economics. We will try also to explain which problems nowadays need to be solved to avoid the fragmentation of such a unitary science as, if such already strong fragmentation increase, economics would fail in its main purpose, which is to explain and try to rule reality. 


2015 ◽  
Vol 97 (1) ◽  
pp. 32-40 ◽  
Author(s):  
Petra Villette ◽  
Charles J. Krebs ◽  
Thomas S. Jung ◽  
Rudy Boonstra

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.


Oryx ◽  
2006 ◽  
Vol 40 (1) ◽  
pp. 90-94 ◽  
Author(s):  
Aaron M. Haines ◽  
Jan E Janecka ◽  
Michael E. Tewes ◽  
Lon I. Grassman Jr ◽  
Patricia Morton

The distribution of ocelots Leopardus pardalis in the USA is limited to southern Texas. Identification and monitoring of ocelot populations enables biologists to assess population health and status. Use of camera traps has been successfully used to monitor numerous populations of wild felids, including the ocelot. Our objectives were to identify ocelot presence within southern Texas and estimate ocelot population size and density. We used camera traps to survey for ocelots on four study sites in southern Texas. We recorded ocelot presence on one study site with an abundance estimate of three individuals and a density estimate of 0.30±SE 0.03 ocelots km−2. The conservation implications of this study suggest concentrating conservation efforts in and around the study site (Yturria Ranch) found to have ocelots. In addition, this study emphasizes the importance of including private landowners in the ocelot recovery process.


2005 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
pp. 121-125 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ana Carolina Srbek-Araujo ◽  
Adriano Garcia Chiarello

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).


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document