Dataset Information

Snap happy: camera traps are an effective sampling tool when compared with alternative methods.

ABSTRACT: Camera traps have become a ubiquitous tool in ecology and conservation. They are routinely deployed in wildlife survey and monitoring work, and are being advocated as a tool for planetary-scale biodiversity monitoring. The camera trap's widespread adoption is predicated on the assumption of its effectiveness, but the evidence base for this is lacking. Using 104 past studies, we recorded the qualitative overall recommendations made by study authors (for or against camera traps, or ambiguous), together with quantitative data on the effectiveness of camera traps (e.g. number of species detected or detection probabilities) relative to 22 other methods. Most studies recommended the use of camera traps overall and they were 39% more effective based on the quantitative data. They were significantly more effective compared with live traps (88%) and were otherwise comparable in effectiveness to other methods. Camera traps were significantly more effective than other methods at detecting a large number of species (31% more) and for generating detections of species (91% more). This makes camera traps particularly suitable for broad-spectrum biodiversity surveys. Film camera traps were found to be far less effective than digital models, which has led to an increase in camera trap effectiveness over time. There was also evidence from the authors that the use of attractants with camera traps reduced their effectiveness (counter to their intended effect), while the quantitative data indicated that camera traps were more effective in closed than open habitats. Camera traps are a highly effective wildlife survey tool and their performance will only improve with future technological advances. The images they produce also have a range of other benefits, for example as digital voucher specimens and as visual aids for outreach. The evidence-base supports the increasing use of camera traps and underlines their suitability for meeting the challenges of global-scale biodiversity monitoring.

SUBMITTER: Wearn OR

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6458413 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Mar

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Snap happy: camera traps are an effective sampling tool when compared with alternative methods.

Wearn Oliver R OR Glover-Kapfer Paul P

Royal Society open science 20190306 3

Camera traps have become a ubiquitous tool in ecology and conservation. They are routinely deployed in wildlife survey and monitoring work, and are being advocated as a tool for planetary-scale biodiversity monitoring. The camera trap's widespread adoption is predicated on the assumption of its effectiveness, but the evidence base for this is lacking. Using 104 past studies, we recorded the qualitative overall recommendations made by study authors (for or against camera traps, or ambiguous), tog ...[more]

PMID: 31032031

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundSticky traps are generally viewed as interceptive sand fly sampling methods; although no previous experimental evidence has supported this assumption. In this study, we tested this assumption experimentally for Phlebotomus orientalis, the principal vector of visceral leishmaniasis in East Africa, and propose an explanation for the highly male-biased collection of sticky traps.MethodsA number of field experiments were carried out in March-June 2016-2019, in Gedarif state, eastern Sudan. In the first experiment, we compared numbers of P. orientalis caught on sticky traps made of black, red, transparent, white, yellow, green and blue A4 size papers set simultaneously at different lunar light conditions. In the second and third experiments, we compared numbers of P. orientalis captured on sticky traps placed side-by-side horizontally or vertically on the ground, or horizontally on a 15 cm height stool. We also witnessed mating behaviour of sand flies following their landing on un-sticky papers placed on the ground.ResultsPhlebotomus orientalis showed significant attraction to white, yellow and transparent traps, with negligible numbers caught on the black and the red traps. Similarly, significantly higher numbers of P. orientalis were attracted to the horizontal traps, resulting in an 8-fold increase in sand fly trapping efficacy as compared to the vertical traps. Placing the traps on the stools resulted in significant reduction in this attraction. In contrast to the sticky traps that captured only very few females; we found that when male sand flies land on un-sticky white paper they successfully lure females and copulate with them.ConclusionsWe demonstrate that, for P. orientalis, sticky traps are more attractant-based than interception-based sampling tools. Further, our findings support the notion that males of this sand fly species likely utilize the bright surface of the trap papers to perform mating rituals that attract the females for copulation. However, pre-mature death in the sticky oil hampers the completion of these rituals, and thus results in failure to attract the females. These findings inform our understanding of P. orientalis behaviour and have important implications for optimization of sticky trap design for vector surveillance purposes.

Dataset Information

Snap happy: camera traps are an effective sampling tool when compared with alternative methods.

Publications

Snap happy: camera traps are an effective sampling tool when compared with alternative methods.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets