Animal detections vary among commonly used camera trap models
Michael M. Driessen A C , Peter J. Jarman B , Shannon Troy A and Sophia Callander AA Biodiversity Monitoring Section, Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment, PO Box 44, Hobart, Tas. 7001, Australia.
B School of Biological Sciences, University of Tasmania, Private Bag 5, Hobart, Tas. 7001, Australia.
C Corresponding author. Email: Michael.Driessen@dpipwe.tas.gov.au
Wildlife Research 44(4) 291-297 https://doi.org/10.1071/WR16228
Submitted: 22 December 2016 Accepted: 27 April 2017 Published: 25 May 2017
Abstract
Context: Understanding how different camera trap models vary in their ability to detect animals is important to help identify which cameras to use to meet the objectives of a study.
Aims: To compare the efficacy of four camera trap models (representing two commonly used brands of camera, Reconyx and Scoutguard) to detect small- and medium-sized mammals and birds.
Methods: Four camera models were placed side by side, focused on a bait station, under field conditions, and the numbers of triggers and visits by mammals and birds were compared. Trigger = camera sensor is activated and records an image of an animal. Visit = one or a sequence of triggers containing one or more images of a species, with no interval between animal images greater than 5 min.
Key results: The Scoutguard 530V camera recorded fewer than half of the triggers and visits by all animals that the Reconyx H600, Scoutguard 560K and Keepguard 680V cameras recorded. The latter three cameras recorded similar numbers of visits by mammals, but the Reconyx H600 recorded fewer triggers by medium-sized mammals than the Keepguard 680V. All camera models failed to detect a substantial proportion of the total known triggers and visits by animals, with a greater proportion of visits detected (14–88%) than triggers (5–83%). All camera models recorded images with no animals present (blanks), with Reconyx H600 recording the fewest blank images.
Conclusions: Camera trap models can vary in their ability to detect triggers and visits by small- and medium-sized mammals and birds. Some cheaper camera models can perform as well as or better than a more expensive model in detecting animals, but factors other than cost may need to be considered. Camera traps failed to detect a substantial proportion of known triggers and visits by animals. Number of visits is a more useful index of animal activity or abundance than number of triggers.
Implications: Variation in camera performance needs to be taken into consideration when designing or comparing camera surveys if multiple camera models are used, especially if the aim is to compare animal activity or abundance. If maximising the number of animal visits recorded at a site is important, then consideration should be given to using two or more cameras.
Additional keywords: bird, camera trap, Keepguard, mammal, monitoring, Reconyx, Scoutguard.
References
Dixon, V., Glover, H. J. K., Winnell, J., Treloar, S. M., Whisson, D. A., and Weston, M. A. (2009). Evaluation of three remote camera systems for detecting mammals and birds. Ecological Management & Restoration 10, 156–158.| Evaluation of three remote camera systems for detecting mammals and birds.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Faunatech (2013). Scout guard surveillance cameras. Faunatech Austbat, Victoria, Australia. Available at http://www.faunatech.com.au/products/scoutguard.html [accessed 2 May 2017]
Glen, A. S., Cockburn, S., Nichols, M., Ekanayake, J., and Warburton, B. (2013). Optimising camera traps for monitoring small mammals. PLoS One 6, 1–7.
Hughson, D. L., Darby, N. W., and Dungan, J. D. (2010). Comparison of motion-active cameras for wildlife investigations. California Fish and Game 96, 101–109.
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., Ballard, G., Claridge, A., Kays, R., Moseby, K., O’Brien, T., O’Connell, A., Sanderson, J., Swann, D. E., Tobler, M., and Townsend, S. (2014). Recommended guiding principles for reporting on camera trapping research. Biodiversity and Conservation 23, 2321–2343.
| Recommended guiding principles for reporting on camera trapping research.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 |
Reconyx (2013). ‘Reconyx Hyperfire High Performance Cameras Instruction Manual.’ (Reconyx Inc.: Holmen, WI.)
Robley, A., Gormley, A., Woodford, L., Lindeman, M., Whitehead, B., Albert, R., Bowd, M., and Smith, A. (2010). Evaluation of camera trap sampling designs used to determine change in occupancy rate and abundance of feral cats. Technical Report Series No. 201. Arthur Rylah Institute for Environmental Research, Heidelberg, Victoria.
Robley, A., Gormley, A., Albert, R., Bowd, M., Hatfield, C., McDonald, R., Thorp, A., Scroggie, M. A. S., and Warton, F. (2011). ‘Glenelg Ark 2005–2010: Evidence of Sustained Control of Foxes and Benefits for Native Mammals.’ (Arthur Rylah Institute for Environmental Research: Heidelberg, Victoria.)
Swan, M., Di Stefano, J., and Christie, F. (2014). Comparing the effectiveness of two types of camera trap for surveying ground-dwelling mammals. In ‘Camera Trapping: Wildlife Management and Research’. (Eds P. Meek and P. Flemming.) pp. 123–130. (CSIRO Publishing: Melbourne.)
Urlus, J., McCutcheon, C., Gilmore, D., and McMahon, J. (2014). The effect of camera trap type on the probability of detecting different size classes of Australian mammals. In ‘Camera Trapping: Wildlife Management and Research’. (Eds P. Meek and P. Fleming.) pp. 111–122. (CSIRO Publishing: Melbourne.)
Weingarth, K., Zimmermann, F., Knauer, F., and Herich, M. (2013). Evaluation of six digital camera models for the use in capture–recapture sampling of Eurasian Lynx (Lynx lynx). Waldökologie, Landschaftsforschung und Naturschutz 13, 87–92.
Zewe, F., Meek, P., Ford, H., and Vernes, K. (2014). A vertical bait station for black rats (Rattus rattus) that reduces bait take by a sympatric native rodent. Australian Mammalogy 36, 67–73.
| A vertical bait station for black rats (Rattus rattus) that reduces bait take by a sympatric native rodent.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
