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 traps and pitfalls: an evaluation of two methods for surveying reptiles in a semiarid ecosystem

2017 ◽  
Vol 44 (8) ◽  
pp. 637 ◽  
Author(s):  
Emily Richardson ◽  
Dale G. Nimmo ◽  
Sarah Avitabile ◽  
Lauren Tworkowski ◽  
Simon J. Watson ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Survey Methods ◽  
Camera Traps ◽  
Survey Method ◽  
Pitfall Trapping ◽  
Additional Species ◽  
Reptile Species ◽  
Trapping Methods ◽  
Infrared Cameras ◽  
Set Up ◽  
Passive Infrared

Context Passive infrared cameras have become a widely utilised method for surveying mammals, providing substantial benefits over conventional trapping methods. Cameras have only recently been tested for their ability to survey terrestrial reptiles, and have not yet been tested against other reptile survey methods for their comparative effectiveness. Aims To investigate the reliability of passive infrared cameras as a reptile survey method, compared with pitfall trapping. In addition, to test a refinement of a current protocol for using cameras to survey reptiles. Methods The study was carried out in the herpetologically diverse, semiarid Mallee region of Victoria, Australia. Paired camera and pitfall lines were set up at 10 sites within Murray Sunset National Park and results from the two methods were compared. A comparison of results from cameras with and without the use of a cork tile substrate was also made. Key results Cameras were just as effective as pitfall traps for detecting some common diurnal species – detecting additional species that pitfalls did not – but were significantly less effective overall. Cameras provided lower estimates of species richness and failed to detect nocturnal species. We also discovered that cork tiles, required in other environments for the cameras to be effective in detecting diurnal reptiles, were not needed here. Conclusions Cameras can be an effective, efficient non-invasive alternative to conventional trapping methods, such as pitfall trapping, for surveying some terrestrial diurnal reptile species. However, further investigation into using cameras for surveying nocturnal reptile species is still required. Implications If the methodological issues identified during this study can be overcome, passive infrared cameras have the potential to be a valuable tool for future herpetological research.

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.

scholarly journals A Comparison of Four Survey Methods for Detecting Fox Squirrels in the Southeastern United States

2016 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
pp. 99-106 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel U. Greene ◽  
Robert A. McCleery ◽  
Lindsay M. Wagner ◽  
Elina P. Garrison
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Survey Methods ◽  
Southeastern United States ◽  
Camera Traps ◽  
Camera Trapping ◽  
Survey Method ◽  
Reliable Technique ◽  
Survey Point ◽  
Fox Squirrel ◽  
Fox Squirrels

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.

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.

Identification of threatened rodent species using infrared and white-flash camera traps

2018 ◽  
Vol 40 (2) ◽  
pp. 188 ◽  
Author(s):  
Phoebe A. Burns ◽  
Marissa L. Parrott ◽  
Kevin C. Rowe ◽  
Benjamin L. Phillips
Keyword(s):  
Small Mammal ◽  
Infrared Camera ◽  
Camera Traps ◽  
Camera Trapping ◽  
Rodent Species ◽  
Mammal Species ◽  
Accurate Identification ◽  
Adequate Image Quality ◽  
Observer Experience ◽  
Small Mammal Species

Camera trapping has evolved into an efficient technique for gathering presence/absence data for many species; however, smaller mammals such as rodents are often difficult to identify in images. Identification is inhibited by co-occurrence with similar-sized small mammal species and by camera set-ups that do not provide adequate image quality. Here we describe survey procedures for identification of two small, threatened rodent species – smoky mouse (Pseudomys fumeus) and New Holland mouse (P. novaehollandiae) – using white-flash and infrared camera traps. We tested whether observers could accurately identify each species and whether experience with small mammals influenced accuracy. Pseudomys fumeus was ~20 times less likely to be misidentified on white-flash images than infrared, and observer experience affected accuracy only for infrared images, where it accounted for all observer variance. Misidentifications of P. novaehollandiae were more common across both flash types: false positives (>0.21) were more common than false negatives (<0.09), and experience accounted for only 31% of variance in observer accuracy. For this species, accurate identification appears to be, in part, an innate skill. Nonetheless, using an appropriate setup, camera trapping clearly has potential to provide broad-scale occurrence data for these and other small mammal species.

Ecology and conservation of the northern hopping-mouse (Notomys aquilo)

2016 ◽  
Vol 64 (1) ◽  
pp. 21 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rebecca L. Diete ◽  
Paul D. Meek ◽  
Christopher R. Dickman ◽  
Luke K.-P. Leung
Keyword(s):  
Conservation Status ◽  
Species Conservation ◽  
Camera Traps ◽  
Camera Trapping ◽  
Home Ranges ◽  
Pitfall Trapping ◽  
Sandy Substrate ◽  
Live Trapping ◽  
Eucalypt Woodland ◽  
Abundance And Distribution

The northern hopping-mouse (Notomys aquilo) is a cryptic and enigmatic rodent endemic to Australia’s monsoonal tropics. Focusing on the insular population on Groote Eylandt, Northern Territory, we present the first study to successfully use live traps, camera traps and radio-tracking to document the ecology of N. aquilo. Searches for signs of the species, camera trapping, pitfall trapping and spotlighting were conducted across the island during 2012–15. These methods detected the species in three of the 32 locations surveyed. Pitfall traps captured 39 individuals over 7917 trap-nights. Females were significantly longer and heavier, and had better body condition, than males. Breeding occurred throughout the year; however, the greatest influx of juveniles into the population occurred early in the dry season in June and July. Nine individuals radio-tracked in woodland habitat utilised discrete home ranges of 0.39–23.95 ha. All individuals used open microhabitat proportionally more than was available, and there was a strong preference for eucalypt woodland on sandy substrate rather than for adjacent sandstone woodland or acacia shrubland. Camera trapping was more effective than live trapping at estimating abundance and, with the lower effort required to employ this technique, it is recommended for future sampling of the species. Groote Eylandt possibly contains the last populations of N. aquilo, but even there its abundance and distribution have decreased dramatically in surveys over the last several decades. Therefore, we recommend that the species’ conservation status under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 be changed from ‘vulnerable’ to ‘endangered’.

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.

Camera-trapping as a methodology to assess the persistence of wildlife carcasses resulting from collisions with human-made structures

2014 ◽  
Vol 41 (8) ◽  
pp. 717 ◽  
Author(s):  
João J. S. Paula ◽  
Regina M. B. Bispo ◽  
Andreia H. Leite ◽  
Pedro G. S. Pereira ◽  
Hugo M. R. G. Costa ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Infrared Camera ◽  
Wind Farms ◽  
Camera Traps ◽  
Camera Trapping ◽  
Survival Models ◽  
Rank Test ◽  
Night Time ◽  
The Real ◽  
Removal Time ◽  
Carcass Persistence

Context To assess the real impact of human-made structures on bird and bat communities, a significant number of carcass-removal trials has been performed worldwide in recent decades. Recently, researchers have started to use camera traps to record carcasses exact removal time and better understand the factors that influence this event. Aims In our study, we endeavoured to identify the factors that significantly affect carcass-persistence time, such as (1) season, (2) scavenger guild, (3) type of carcass, (4) habitat and (5) weather conditions. Additionally, we aimed to assess the performance of camera-trapping technology in comparison to the conventional method typically used in carcass-removal trials. Methods We conducted two trials in two wind farms during early spring and during summer season. In each trial, we used 30 bird carcasses and 30 mice carcasses as surrogates for bats. Digital infrared camera traps were used to monitor each carcass. Chi-squared test was used to investigate differences between wind farms regarding the scavenger guild. A log-rank test was used to compare carcass-persistence times for both wind farms. Carcass-persistence times were analysed using both non-parametric and parametric survival models. Finally, we evaluated the percentage of carcasses removed during the day time and night time. Key results In our study area, carcass-persistence times were influenced by the scavenger guild present and by the exposure to rain. Camera traps allowed to record the exact removal time for the majority of the carcasses, reducing the number of visits to the study site about five times. However, there were also cases wherein loss of data occurred as a result of equipment flaws or camera theft. Conclusions Results demonstrated the importance of undertaking site-specific carcass-removal trials. Use of camera-trap methodology is a valid option, reducing displacement costs. Costs related to equipment purchase and the risk of camera theft should be taken into consideration. Implications When choosing camera-trapping, the main aspect to evaluate is the balance between the investment in equipment purchase and the cost savings through reduced displacement costs. Further studies are required concerning the real effects of the data collected on the accuracy of carcass-removal correction factor obtained.

scholarly journals Differencial efficiency of two sampling methods in capturing non-volant small mammals in an area in eastern Amazonia

2017 ◽  
Vol 47 (2) ◽  
pp. 123-132 ◽  
Author(s):  
Natália Carneiro ARDENTE ◽  
Átilla Colombo FERREGUETTI ◽  
Donald GETTINGER ◽  
Pricila LEAL ◽  
Fernanda MARTINS-HATANO ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Small Mammals ◽  
Sampling Methods ◽  
Vegetation Type ◽  
Survey Methods ◽  
Peanut Butter ◽  
Capture Rate ◽  
Brazilian Amazon ◽  
National Forest ◽  
Trapping Methods ◽  
Single Method

ABSTRACT This study was the first to evaluate the efficiency of trapping methods in the study of small mammals in the Carajás National Forest, southeastern Brazilian Amazon. It is an area with a unique vegetation type (metalofilic savannah or Canga). The aims of this study were to compare the efficiency of two trapping methods (i.e. live-traps and pitfalls), the bait types used, and evaluate if trapping success varied seasonally. We used four sampling grids, each with six parallel transects. The trap effort for live-traps and pitfalls was 51,840 trap*nights and 10,800 bucket*nights, respectively. We used three types of bait: a paste of peanut butter and sardines, bacon, and bananas. We placed one type of bait in each trap, alternating between points. We recorded 26 species of small mammals, 11 from the order Didelphimorphia and 15 from the order Rodentia. Pitfalls captured a higher number of species compared with live-traps. The capture rate, the mortality rate and the quantity of juveniles and adults did not differ significantly between methods. Capture rate for pitfalls differed significantly between seasons. The majority of species were captured by a single method. Species were equally attracted to the traps regardless of the type of bait used. Some of our results differed significantly from other studies in Amazonia and such variation should be taken into account when designing survey methods for Amazonian small mammals.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document