A comparison of the effectiveness of camera trapping and live trapping for sampling terrestrial small-mammal communities
Natasha De Bondi A , John G. White A C , Mike Stevens A B and Raylene Cooke AA School of Life and Environmental Sciences, Deakin University, 221 Burwood Highway, Burwood, Vic. 3125, Australia.
B Grampians National Park, Parks Victoria, PO Box 18, Halls Gap, Vic. 3381, Australia.
C Corresponding author. Email: john.white@deakin.edu.au
Wildlife Research 37(6) 456-465 https://doi.org/10.1071/WR10046
Submitted: 8 March 2010 Accepted: 23 August 2010 Published: 18 October 2010
Abstract
Context. There is an increasing reliance on the use of camera-trap technologies for surveys of medium to large terrestrial mammals. Camera trapping may, however, also have significant applications for broad-scale surveys of small mammals.
Aims. The present study aims to compare results from camera-trapping surveys to those of the more traditional live-trapping techniques. Specifically, it aims to test the effectiveness of the techniques for detecting species, and the cost effectiveness of both approaches.
Methods. Surveys were conducted across 36 sites in the Grampians National Park, Victoria, Australia, between April and July 2009. At each site, independent surveys were conducted for small mammals by using a combination of Elliot and cage trapping, then camera trapping. Results for the two different approaches were compared for both their ability to generate small-mammal presence data and their cost effectiveness.
Key results. Camera-trapping surveys of 36 sites in the Grampians National Park compared favourably with those of live-trapping surveys. Similar species were detected across the sites, and camera trapping was a considerably more cost effective than live trapping.
Conclusions. Camera-trapping surveys of small terrestrial mammals may provide a new and cost-effective technique for surveying terrestrial small mammals. This is particularly the case when presence data are the main requirement of the survey, with no requirement to capture and tag animals.
Implications. Given the cost-effective nature of camera trapping, there is potential to use this approach to increase the level of replication and spatial coverage of small-mammal surveys. Improving the replication and spatial coverage of studies has the potential to significantly increase the scope of research questions that can be asked, thus providing the potential to improve wildlife management.
Additional keywords: camera trapping, cost effectiveness, small mammal, survey methods, trapping.
Acknowledgments
First, we acknowledge the traditional owners, past and present, of the Grampians–Gariwerd land. This project would not have been possible without generous funding from the Parks Victoria Research Partners Panel. We also thank Parks Victoria West region for supplying equipment, vehicles and accommodation for the duration of field sampling. We thank Luke Kelly and Dale Nimmo for providing statistical advice. Thanks go to all the Conservation Volunteers Australia, Victoria National Parks Association participants and Deakin University volunteers for their enthusiastic assistance with field sampling, rain or shine, animals or no animals. Finally, thanks go to Desley Whisson for introducing us to cameras, and for working out that masking tape can significantly reduce the flash strength of the cameras. This modification made it possible to use cameras for this application.
Barea-Azcón, J. M. , Virgos, E. , Ballesteros-Duperon, E. , Moleon, M. , and Chirosa, M. (2007). Surveying carnivores at large spatial scales: a comparison of four broad-applied methods. Biodiversity and Conservation 16, 1213–1230.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Cowardin, L. M. (1969). Use of flooded timber by waterfowl at Montezuma national wildlife refuge. The Journal of Wildlife Management 33, 829–842.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Hourigan, C. L. , Catterall, C. P. , Jones, D. , and Rhodes, M. (2008). A comparison of the effectiveness of bat detectors and harp traps for surveying bats in an urban landscape. Wildlife Research 35, 768–774.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Karanth, K. U. , and Nichols, J. D. (1998). Estimation of tiger densities in India using photographic captures and recaptures. Ecology 79, 2852–2862.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Larrucea, E. S. , and Brussard, P. F. (2008). Habitat selection and current distribution of the pygmy rabbit in Nevada and California, USA. Journal of Mammalogy 89, 691–699.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Peterson, L. M. , and Thomas, J. A. (1998). Performance of trailmaster infrared sensors in monitoring captive coyotes. Wildlife Society Bulletin 26, 592–596.
Vernes, K. , and Haydon, D. T. (2001). Effect of fire on northern bettong (Bettongia tropica) foraging behaviour. Austral Ecology 26, 649–659.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Vine, S. J. , Crowther, M. S. , Lapidge, S. J. , Dickman, C. R. , Mooney, N. , Piggot, M. P. , and English, A. W. (2009). Comparison of methods to detect rare and cryptic species: a case study using the red fox (Vulpes vulpes). Wildlife Research 36, 436–446.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Watkins, A. F. , McWhirter, J. L. , and King, C. M. (2010). Variable detectability in long-term population surveys of small mammals. European Journal of Wildlife Research 56, 261–274.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Whisson, D. A. , Engeman, R. M. , and Collins, K. (2005). Developing relative abundance techniques (RATs) for monitoring rodent populations. Wildlife Research 32, 239–244.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Wiewel, A. S. , Clark, W. R. , and Sovada, M. A. (2007). Assessing small mammal abundance with track-tube indices and mark-recapture population estimates. Journal of Mammalogy 88, 250–260.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Yates, F. (1934). Contingency tables involving small numbers and the χ2 test. Supplement to the Journal of the Royal Statistical Society 1, 217–235.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
