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.

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 et al. 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 et al. 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 et al. 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 et al. 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 et al. 2001). Camera systems have certain limitations and biases (Swann et al. 2004), yet these have not been well studied. Refinement of the use of camera systems is required to fully realize their value (Towerton et al. 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.

Can camera traps monitor Komodo dragons a large ectothermic predator?

Camera trapping has greatly enhanced population monitoring of often cryptic and low abundance apex carnivores. Effectiveness of passive infrared camera trapping, and ultimately population monitoring, relies on temperature mediated differences between the animal and its ambient environment to ensure good camera detection. In ectothermic predators such as large varanid lizards, this criterion is presumed less certain. Here we evaluated the effectiveness of camera trapping to potentially monitor the population status of the Komodo dragon (Varanus komodoensis), an apex predator, using site occupancy approaches. We compared site-specific estimates of site occupancy and detection derived using camera traps and cage traps at 181 trapping locations established across six sites on four islands within Komodo National Park, Eastern Indonesia. Detection and site occupancy at each site were estimated using eight competing models that considered site-specific variation in occupancy (ψ)and varied detection probabilities (p) according to detection method, site and survey number using a single season site occupancy modelling approach. The most parsimonious model [ψ (site), p (site survey); ω = 0.74] suggested that site occupancy estimates differed among sites. Detection probability varied as an interaction between site and survey number. Our results indicate that overall camera traps produced similar estimates of detection and site occupancy to cage traps, irrespective of being paired, or unpaired, with cage traps. Whilst one site showed some evidence detection was affected by trapping method detection was too low to produce an accurate occupancy estimate. Overall, as camera trapping is logistically more feasible it may provide, with further validation, an alternative method for evaluating long-term site occupancy patterns in Komodo dragons, and potentially other large reptiles, aiding conservation of this species.