Camera traps : the research paparazzi

The use of cameras to monitor wildlife is commonplace; however, little is known of the effectiveness of different camera technologies for the detection of mammals. We compared the detection success of three different camera systems, a passive infrared (IR) system, an active IR and a constant video camera, alongside a trapping grid of Elliott and cage traps to determine their effectiveness at detecting mammals at multiple locations in the Otways National Park, Victoria, Australia (n = 160 events; 40 ± 23 [SD] events per night). Species detected and detection rates differed between methods (χ2 = 57.95, df = 2, p < 0.0001). Only house mice (Mus musculus) were detected by camera and traditional trapping techniques. Camera systems alone detected foxes (Vulpes vulpes) and a koala (Phascolarctos cinereus), while traditional traps captured bush rats (Rattus fuscipes), agile antechinus (Antechinus agilis) and a brush-tailed possum (Trichosurus vulpecula) which were not detected by the camera systems. Assuming that the video camera detected all mammals at the camera trap, the passive IR system detected almost all mammals detected by the video and it detected significantly more species than the active IR system. The choice of method will ultimately depend on the species of interest, logistics and the study site, and may substantially influence the results of a study.<br />