Using magnification lenses on camera traps to improve small mammal identification
P. D. Meek A B * and C. R. Cook CA Vertebrate Pest Research Unit, NSW Department of Primary Industries, PO Box 350, Coffs Harbour, NSW 2450, Australia.
B School of Environmental and Rural Sciences, University of New England, Armidale, NSW 2351, Australia.
C Friends of Brisbane Ranges, 149 Whinray Road, Meredith, Vic. 3333, Australia.
Australian Mammalogy 44(3) 413-418 https://doi.org/10.1071/AM21050
Submitted: 20 December 2021 Accepted: 12 March 2022 Published: 17 May 2022
© 2022 The Author(s) (or their employer(s)). Published by CSIRO Publishing on behalf of the Australian Mammal Society.
Abstract
Detection of small mammals and reptiles using camera traps can be imperfect, and for some species it is almost impossible to confirm species identification using monochrome images because the animals are not sharply focused or distinguishing features cannot be deciphered. We have proof-of-concept evidence that generic reading glass lenses can be used to reduce the focal distance between camera trap and target animal. Adding these lenses to the existing intact camera trap improves image quality and better highlights distinguishing features necessary for accurate species identification and close-up observations.
Keywords: behaviour, fauna survey, focal length, identification, image clarity, image sharpness, magnification, remote cameras, trail cameras, wildlife research.
References
De Bondi, N., White, J. G., Stevens, M., and Cooke, R. (2010). A comparison of the effectiveness of camera trapping and live trapping for sampling terrestrial small-mammal communities. Wildlife Research 37, 456–465.| A comparison of the effectiveness of camera trapping and live trapping for sampling terrestrial small-mammal communities.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Falzon, G., Meek, P. D., Vernes, K. (2012). Computer Assisted identification of small Australian mammals in camera trap imagery. In ‘Camera Trapping: Wildlife Management and Research’. (Eds. P. Meek, P. Fleming, G. Ballard, P. Banks, A. Claridge, J. Sanderson, D. Swann) (CSIRO Publishing: Melbourne, Australia.)
Gracanin, A., Gracanin, V., and Mikac, K. M. (2019). The selfie trap: a novel camera trap design for accurate small mammal identification Ecological Management & Restoration 20, 156–158.
| The selfie trap: a novel camera trap design for accurate small mammal identificationCrossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Meek, P. D. (2011). Refining and improving the use of camera trap technology for wildlife managment and research in Australia and New Zealand. The Winston Churchill Memorial Trust of Australia, Australia.
Meek, P. D., and Vernes, K. (2016). Can camera trapping be used to accurately survey and monitor the Hastings River mouse (Pseudomys oralis)? Australian Mammalogy 38, 44–51.
| Can camera trapping be used to accurately survey and monitor the Hastings River mouse (Pseudomys oralis)?Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Meek, P. D., Vernes, K., and Falzon, G. (2013). On the reliability of expert identification of small-medium sized mammals from camera trap photos. Wildlife Biology in Practice 9, 1–19.
| On the reliability of expert identification of small-medium sized mammals from camera trap photos.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Meek, P. D., Ballard, G.-A., and Fleming, P. J. S. (2015). The pitfalls of wildlife camera trapping as a survey tool in Australia. Australian Mammalogy 37, 13–22.
| The pitfalls of wildlife camera trapping as a survey tool in Australia.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Mos, J., and Hofmeester, T. R. (2020). The Mostela: an adjusted camera trapping device as a promising non-invasive tool to study and monitor small mustelids. Mammal Research 65, 843–853.
| The Mostela: an adjusted camera trapping device as a promising non-invasive tool to study and monitor small mustelids.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Pusenkova, A., Poirier, M., Kalhor, D., Galstian, T., Gauthier, G., and Maldague, X. (2021). Optical design challenges of subnivean camera trapping under extreme arctic conditions. Arctic Science , .
| Optical design challenges of subnivean camera trapping under extreme arctic conditions.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Soininen, E. M., Jensvoll, I., Killengreen, S. T., and Ims, R. A. (2015). Under the snow: a new camera trap opens the white box of subnivean ecology. Remote Sensing in Ecology and Conservation 1, 29–38.
| Under the snow: a new camera trap opens the white box of subnivean ecology.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Welbourne, D.J., Claridge, A.W., Paull, D.J., and Ford, F. (2019). Improving terrestrial squamate surveys with camera-trap programming and hardware modifications. Animals 9, 388.
| Improving terrestrial squamate surveys with camera-trap programming and hardware modifications.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Wellington, K., Bottom, C., Merrill, C., and Litvaitis, J.A. (2014). Identifying performance differences among trail cameras used to monitor forest mammals. Wildlife Society Bulletin 38, 634–638.
| Identifying performance differences among trail cameras used to monitor forest mammals.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
