Using multiple survey methods to detect terrestrial reptiles and mammals: what are the most successful and cost-efficient combinations?
Jenni G. Garden A B D , Clive A. McAlpine A B , Hugh P. Possingham B and Darryl N. Jones CA School of Geography, Planning and Architecture, The University of Queensland, St Lucia, Qld 4067, Australia.
B The Ecology Centre, The University of Queensland, St Lucia, Qld 4067, Australia.
C Centre for Innovative Conservation Strategies, Griffith University, Nathan, Qld 4111, Australia.
D Corresponding author. Email: jenni_garden@hotmail.com
Wildlife Research 34(3) 218-227 https://doi.org/10.1071/WR06111
Submitted: 18 August 2006 Accepted: 8 May 2007 Published: 6 June 2007
Abstract
The selection of methods for wildlife surveys is a decision that will influence the accuracy and comprehensiveness of survey outcomes. The choice of methods is commonly based on the species of interest, yet is often limited by the project budget. Although several studies have investigated the effectiveness of various survey techniques for detecting terrestrial mammal and reptile species, none have provided a quantitative analysis of the costs associated with different methods. We compare the detection success and cost efficiency of cage traps, Elliott traps, pit-fall traps, hair funnels, direct observation, and scat detection/analysis for detecting the occurrence of terrestrial reptile and small mammal species in urban bushland remnants of Brisbane City, Queensland, Australia. Cage traps and Elliott traps coupled with hair funnels were the most cost-effective methods for detecting the highest number of ground-dwelling mammal species. Pit-fall traps and direct observations were the most cost-effective methods for maximising the number of reptile species identified. All methods made a contribution to overall detection success by detecting at least one species not detected by any other method. This suggests that a combination of at least two complementary methods will provide the most successful and cost-efficient detection of reptile and mammal species in urban forest remnants. Future studies should explicitly test these findings and examine efficient trapping combinations across different habitat types and for other fauna groups.
Acknowledgements
This research formed part of a collaborative project between The University of Queensland (UQ) and Brisbane City Council. Fauna surveys were conducted under UQ AEC permit GSP/030/04/BCC/UQGS and Queensland Government EPA scientific purposes permit WISP01975204. Financial support was provided by Brisbane City Council and a UQ graduate scholarship. We thank private land-owners and Redland Shire Council’s Water and Waste Division for supporting the project by allowing access to their properties. Thanks also to: the numerous volunteers who assisted with digging holes for pit-fall traps; Michiala Bowen and Barbara Triggs for analysing hair and scat samples; and the project’s research assistants, Michelle Walton and Alison Howes, for dedicated support and assistance during field surveys. We also thank Dr Ann Peterson for reading and commenting on the draft manuscript. This manuscript also benefited from useful comments and suggestions provided by Nick Clemann and three anonymous reviewers.
Bisevac, L. , and Majer, J. (2002). Cost-effectiveness and data-yield of biodiversity surveys. Journal of the Royal Society of Western Australia 85, 129–132.
Catling, P. C. , Burt, R. J. , and Kooyman, R. (1997). A comparison of techniques used in a survey of the ground-dwelling and arboreal mammals in forests in north-eastern New South Wales. Wildlife Research 24, 417–432.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Milledge, D. (1991). A survey of the terrestrial vertebrates of coastal Byron Shire. Australian Zoologist 27, 66–90.
