Dataset Information

Optimising camera traps for monitoring small mammals.

ABSTRACT: Practical techniques are required to monitor invasive animals, which are often cryptic and occur at low density. Camera traps have potential for this purpose, but may have problems detecting and identifying small species. A further challenge is how to standardise the size of each camera's field of view so capture rates are comparable between different places and times. We investigated the optimal specifications for a low-cost camera trap for small mammals. The factors tested were 1) trigger speed, 2) passive infrared vs. microwave sensor, 3) white vs. infrared flash, and 4) still photographs vs. video. We also tested a new approach to standardise each camera's field of view. We compared the success rates of four camera trap designs in detecting and taking recognisable photographs of captive stoats (Mustelaerminea), feral cats (Felis catus) and hedgehogs (Erinaceuseuropaeus). Trigger speeds of 0.2-2.1 s captured photographs of all three target species unless the animal was running at high speed. The camera with a microwave sensor was prone to false triggers, and often failed to trigger when an animal moved in front of it. A white flash produced photographs that were more readily identified to species than those obtained under infrared light. However, a white flash may be more likely to frighten target animals, potentially affecting detection probabilities. Video footage achieved similar success rates to still cameras but required more processing time and computer memory. Placing two camera traps side by side achieved a higher success rate than using a single camera. Camera traps show considerable promise for monitoring invasive mammal control operations. Further research should address how best to standardise the size of each camera's field of view, maximise the probability that an animal encountering a camera trap will be detected, and eliminate visible or audible cues emitted by camera traps.

SUBMITTER: Glen AS

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3695914 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Camera trapping to study wildlife allows for data collection, without the need to capture animals. Traditionally, camera traps have been used to target larger terrestrial mammal species, though recently novel methods and adjustments in procedures have meant camera traps can be used to study small mammals. The selfie trap (a camera trapping method) may present robust sampling and ecological study of small mammals. This study aimed to evaluate the selfie trap method in terms of its ability to detect species and estimate population density. To address this aim, standard small mammal live trapping was undertaken, immediately followed by camera trapping using the selfie trap. Both methods were set to target the arboreal sugar glider (Petaurus breviceps) and semi-arboreal brown antechinus (Antechinus stuartii). The more ground-dwelling bush rat (Rattus fuscipes) was also live trapped and recorded on camera. Across four survey areas, the probability of detection for each of the three species was higher for selfie traps than for live trapping. Spatially explicit capture-recapture models showed that selfie traps were superior at estimating density for brown antechinus and sugar gliders, when compared to simulated live trapping data. Hit rates (number of videos per various time intervals) were correlated with abundance. When correlating various hit rate intervals with abundance, the use of 10-min hit rate was best for predicting sugar glider abundance (R2 = 0.94). The abundance of brown antechinus was estimated from selfie traps using a 24-h hit rate as a predictor (R2 = 0.85). For sugar gliders, the selfie trap can replace live trapping as individuals can be identified through their unique facial stripes and natural ear scars, and thus used in capture-recapture analysis. This method may be useful for monitoring the abundance of other small mammal species that can also be individually recognized from photographs.Supplementary informationThe online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s13364-022-00643-5.

Project description:Artificial prey techniques-wherein synthetic replicas of real organisms are placed in natural habitats-are widely used to study predation in the field. We investigated the extent to which videography could provide additional information to such studies. As a part of studies on aposematism and mimicry of coral snakes (Micrurus) and their mimics, observational data from 109 artificial snake prey were collected from video-recording camera traps in three locations in the Americas (terra firme forest, Tiputini Biodiversity Station, Ecuador; premontane wet forest, Nahá Reserve, Mexico; longleaf pine forest, Southeastern Coastal Plain, North Carolina, USA). During 1,536 camera days, a total of 268 observations of 20 putative snake predator species were recorded in the vicinity of artificial prey. Predators were observed to detect artificial prey 52 times, but only 21 attacks were recorded. Mammals were the most commonly recorded group of predators near replicas (243) and were responsible for most detections (48) and attacks (20). There was no difference between avian or mammalian predators in their probability of detecting replicas nor in their probability of attacking replicas after detecting them. Bite and beak marks left on clay replicas registered a higher ratio of avian:mammalian attacks than videos registered. Approximately 61.5% of artificial prey monitored with cameras remained undetected by predators throughout the duration of the experiments. Observational data collected from videos could provide more robust inferences on the relative fitness of different prey phenotypes, predator behavior, and the relative contribution of different predator species to selection on prey. However, we estimate that the level of predator activity necessary for the benefit of additional information that videos provide to be worth their financial costs is achieved in fewer than 20% of published artificial prey studies. Although we suggest future predation studies employing artificial prey to consider using videography as a tool to inspire new, more focused inquiry, the investment in camera traps is unlikely to be worth the expense for most artificial prey studies until the cost:benefit ratio decreases.

Dataset Information

Optimising camera traps for monitoring small mammals.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets