User-based design specifications for the ultimate camera trap for wildlife research
P. D. Meek A B D and A. Pittet CA NSW Department of Primary Industries, PO Box 530, Coffs Harbour, NSW 2450, Australia.
B School of Environmental and Rural Science, University of New England, Armidale, NSW 2351, Australia.
C Department of Electronic Systems Engineering (formerly CEDT), Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore, Karnataka, India.
D Corresponding author. Email: paul.meek@dpi.nsw.gov.au
Wildlife Research 39(8) 649-660 https://doi.org/10.1071/WR12138
Submitted: 24 July 2012 Accepted: 14 November 2012 Published: 11 December 2012
Abstract
Context: The adoption of camera trapping in place of traditional wildlife survey methods has become common despite inherent flaws in equipment and a dearth of research to test their fit for purpose. Overwhelmingly, the development of commercial camera traps has been driven by the needs of North American hunters. Camera-trap models and features are influenced by these market forces that drive the changes in designs as new technologies develop. This focus on recreation, rather than research has often frustrated wildlife professionals as the equipment has rarely met minimum standards for scientific application.
Aims: We investigated the demand for white-flash camera traps around the world to highlight the demand for such camera traps in wildlife research to the manufacturing industry. We also compiled the camera-trap specifications required by scientists through the world in an effort to influence and improve the quality of camera traps for research.
Methods: We carried out an internet-based survey of biologists, zoologists, conservationists and other wildlife researchers by using a questionnaire to gather baseline market data on camera-trap use and demand. We also conducted an informal survey of scientists via email and in person, asking for their preferences and features of an ultimate camera-trap design.
Key result: Infrared camera traps are widely used and more so than white-flash camera traps, although the demand for white flash remains significant. Cost, speed, size, ease of use, versatility and the range of settings were the key features identified in a good camera trap.
Conclusions: The present paper describes and discusses the desired features and specifications as defined by over 150 scientists using camera traps around the world. Data gathered also provide some insight into the market demand for camera traps by biologists, zoologists, conservationists and other wildlife researchers around the world. These design features are discussed under the guise of the ultimate camera trap for wildlife research, with the disclaimer that no such camera trap currently exists.
Implications: The information provided in the paper has and will be a useful guide to future camera-trap designs, although it is unlikely that all of the features required will ever be produced in a cheap camera trap.
Additional keywords: technology, remote camera, trail camera.
References
Ahumada, J. A., Silva, C. E. F., Gajapersad, K., Hallam, C., Hurtado, J., Martin, E., McWilliam, A., Mugerwa, B., O’Brien, T., Rovero, F., Sheil, D., Spironello, W. R., Winarni, N., and Andelman, S. J. (2011). Community structure and diversity of tropical forest mammals: data from a global camera trap network. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences 366, 2703–2711.| Community structure and diversity of tropical forest mammals: data from a global camera trap network.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Bancroft, P. (2010). Property surveillance and security. In ‘Deer Cameras; The Science of Scouting’. (Ed. L. Thomas) (Quality Deer Management Association.)
Fegraus, E. H., Lin, K., Ahumada, J. A., Baru, C., Chandra, S., and Youn, C. (2011). Data acquisition and management software for camera trap data: a case study from the TEAM Network. Ecological Informatics 6, 345–353.
Harris, G., Thompson, R., Childs, J. L., and Sanderson, J. G. (2010). Automatic storage and analysis of camera trap data. Bulletin of the Ecological Society of America 91, 352–360.
| Automatic storage and analysis of camera trap data.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.
| Estimation of tiger densities in India using photographic captures and recaptures.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Kays, R. W., and Slauson, K. M. (2008). Remote cameras. In ‘Noninvasive Survey Methods for Carnivores: Methods and Analyses’. (Eds R. A. Long, P. MacKay, W. J. Zielinski and J. C. Ray.) (Island Press: Washington, DC.)
Kays, R., Kranstauber, B., Jansen, P. A., Carbone, C., Rowcliffe, M., Fountain, T., and Tilak, S. (2009). Camera traps as sensor networks for monitoring animal communities. In ‘The 34th IEEE Conference on Local Computer Networks’, Zurich, Switzerland. pp. 811–818.
Kucera, T. E., and Barrett, R. H. (2011). A history of camera trapping. In ‘Camera Traps in Animal Ecology’. (Eds A. F. O’Connell, J. D. Nichols and K. U. Karanth.) pp. 9–26. (Springer: New York.)
Marnewick, K., Funston, P. J., and Karanth, K. U. (2008). Evaluating camera trapping as a method for estimating cheetah abundance in ranching areas: research article. South African Journal of Wildlife Research 38, 59–65.
Meek, P. D. (2010). Remote camera monitoring of the Hastings River mouse (Pseudomys oralis): trial of a novel technique for monitoring populations. Unpublished Report for Gondwana Rainforests of Australia, Office of Environment and Heritage, Coffs Harbour, NSW Australia.
Meek, P. D. (2012). ‘Refining and Improving the Use of Camera Trap Technology for Wildlife Management and Research in Australia and New Zealand.’ (The Winston Churchill Memorial Trust of Australia: Canberra, Australia.)
Miura, S., Yasuda, M., and Ratnam, L. C. (1997). Who steals the fruits? Monitoring frugivory of mammals in a tropical rain-forest. Malayan Nature Journal 50, 183–193.
Nelson, JE, Menkhorst, P., Howard, K, Chick, R., and Lumsden, L. (2009). The status of smoky mouse populations at some historical sites in Victoria, and survey methods for their detection. Arthur Rylah Institute for Environmental Research, Heidelberg, Vic.
O’Connell, A. F., Nichols, J. D., and Karanth, K. U. (2011). ‘Camera Traps in Animal Ecology Methods and Analyses.’ (Springer: New York.)
Pearson, O. (1960). Habits of harvest mice revealed by automatic photographic recorders. Journal of Mammalogy 41, 58–74.
| Habits of harvest mice revealed by automatic photographic recorders.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Prasad, S., Pittet, A., and Sukumar, R. (2010). Who really ate the fruit? A novel approach to camera trapping for quantifying frugivory by ruminants. Ecological Research 25, 225–231.
| Who really ate the fruit? A novel approach to camera trapping for quantifying frugivory by ruminants.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Rowcliffe, J. M., and Carbone, C. (2008). Surveys using camera traps: are we looking to a brighter future? Animal Conservation 11, 185–186.
| Surveys using camera traps: are we looking to a brighter future?Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Sanderson, J. G., and Trolle, M. (2005). Monitoring elusive mammals. American Scientist 93, 148–155.
Schipper, J. (2007). Camera-trap avoidance by Kinkajous Potos flavus: rethinking the ‘non-invasive’ paradigm. Small Carnivore Conservation 36, 38–41.
Shiras, G. (1906). Photographing wild game with flash-light and camera. National Geographic XVII, 367–423.
Shiras, G. (1913). Wild animals that took their own pictures by day and night. National Geographic XXIV, 763–834.
Swann, D. E., Hass, C. C., Dalton, D. C., and Wolf, S. A. (2004). Infrared-triggered cameras for detecting wildlife: an evaluation and review. Wildlife Society Bulletin 32, 357–365.
| Infrared-triggered cameras for detecting wildlife: an evaluation and review.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Swann, D. E., Kawanishi, K., and Palmer, J. (2011a). Evaluating types and features of camera traps in ecological studies: guide for researchers. In ‘Camera Traps in Animal Ecology Methods and Analyses’. (Eds A. F. O’Connell, J. D. Nichols and K. U. Karanth.) pp. 27–44. (Springer: New York.)
Swann, D. E., Kawanishi, K., and Palmer, J. (2011b). Evaluating types and features of camera traps in ecological studies: a guide for reseachers. In ‘Camera Traps in Animal Ecology: Methods and Analyses’. (Eds A. F. O’Connell, J. D. Nichols and K. U. Karanth.) pp. 27–44. (Springer: New York.)
Wegge, P., Pokheral, C. P., and Jnawali, S. R. (2004). Effects of trapping effort and trap shyness on estimates of tiger abundance from camera trap studies. Animal Conservation 7, 251–256.
| Effects of trapping effort and trap shyness on estimates of tiger abundance from camera trap studies.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Zimmermann, F., Breitenmoser, C., and Breitenmoser, U. (2005). Natal dispersal of Eurasian lynx (Lynx lynx) in Switzerland. Journal of Zoology 267, 381–395.
| Natal dispersal of Eurasian lynx (Lynx lynx) in Switzerland.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
