Evaluation of three remote camera systems for detecting mammals and birds

Automated camera systems have widespread application in wildlife studies and their use is increasing (Kucera & Barrett 1993; Cutler & Swann 1999; Swann <i>et al</i>. 2004; Parker et al. 2008). Among other applications, they have been used to produce species inventories, estimate population sizes, study behaviour and examine the impact and activity of predators (Cutler & Swann 1999; Swann <i>et al</i>. 2004). Modern camera systems can operate for extended durations, are relatively non-invasive, easy to operate, portable, durable and can take good-quality images by day and night (Kucera & Barrett 1993; Peterson & Thomas 1998; Allison & Destefano 2006; Parker <i>et al</i>. 2008). Beyond their scientific applications, the generation of high-quality images can be useful for educational and conservation purposes (Cutler & Swann 1999). The two most common types of systems currently used in ecological research are passive and active infrared (IR) systems (Cutler & Swann 1999; Parker <i>et al</i>. 2008). An older form of remote photography is video which captures a continuous record of activity at a focal site (Stewart et al.1997; King <i>et al.</i> 2001). Camera systems have certain limitations and biases (Swann <i>et al</i>. 2004), yet these have not been well studied. Refinement of the use of camera systems is required to fully realize their value (Towerton <i>et al</i>. 2008). Here, we describe a comparison of detection rates of mammals and birds by passive and active IR camera systems, using a video system to benchmark detection rates.