Pits or pictures: a comparative study of camera traps and pitfall trapping to survey small mammals and reptiles
Shannon J. Dundas
A B C , Katinka X. Ruthrof A , Giles E. St.J. Hardy A and Patricia A. Fleming A
A School of Veterinary and Life Sciences, Murdoch University, 90 Murdoch Dr, Murdoch, WA 6150, Australia.
B NSW Department of Primary Industries, 1447 Forest Road, Orange, NSW 2800, Australia.
C Corresponding author. Email: S.Dundas@murdoch.edu.au
Wildlife Research 46(2) 104-113 https://doi.org/10.1071/WR18074
Submitted: 24 April 2018 Accepted: 10 October 2018 Published: 4 February 2019
Abstract
Context: Camera trapping is a widely used monitoring tool for a broad range of species across most habitat types. Camera trapping has some major advantages over other trapping methods, such as pitfall traps, because cameras can be left in the field for extended periods of time. However, there is still a need to compare traditional trapping methods with newer techniques.
Aims: To compare trap rates, species richness and community composition of small mammals and reptiles by using passive, unbaited camera traps and pitfall traps.
Methods: We directly compared pitfall trapping (20-L buried buckets) with downward-facing infrared-camera traps (Reconyx) to survey small reptiles and mammals at 16 sites within a forested habitat in south-western Australia. We compared species captured using each method, as well as the costs associated with each.
Key results: Overall, we recorded 228 reptiles, 16 mammals and 1 frog across 640 pitfall trap-nights (38.3 animal captures per 100 trap-nights) compared to 271 reptiles and 265 mammals (for species likely to be captured in pitfall traps) across 2572 camera trap nights (20.8 animal captures per 100 trap-nights). When trap effort is taken into account, camera trapping was only 23% as efficient as pitfall trapping for small reptiles (mostly Scincidae), but was five times more efficient for surveying small mammals (Dasyuridae). Comparing only those species that were likely to be captured in pitfall traps, 13 species were recorded by camera trapping compared with 20 species recorded from pitfall trapping; however, we found significant (P < 0.001) differences in community composition between the methods. In terms of cost efficacy, camera trapping was the more expensive method for our short, 4-month survey when taking the cost of cameras into consideration.
Conclusions: Applicability of camera trapping is dependent on the specific aims of the intended research. Camera trapping is beneficial where community responses to ecosystem disturbance are being tested. Live capture of small reptiles via pitfall trapping allows for positive species identification, morphological assessment, and collection of reference photos to help identify species from camera photos.
Implications: As stand-alone techniques, both survey methods under-represent the available species present in a region. The use of more than one survey method improves the scope of fauna community assessments.
Additional keywords: Antechinus, camera trapping, Elliott traps, live trapping, Pogona minor, Sminthopsis, survey techniques.
References
Ariefiandy, A., Purwandana, D., Seno, A., Ciofi, C., and Jessop, T. S. (2013). Can camera traps monitor komodo dragons a large ectothermic predator? PLoS One 8, e58800.| Can camera traps monitor komodo dragons a large ectothermic predator?Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 23527027PubMed |
Broeckhoven, C., and Mouton, P. F. N. (2015). Some like it hot: camera traps unravel the effects of weather conditions and predator presence on the activity levels of two lizards. PLoS One 10, e0137428.
| Some like it hot: camera traps unravel the effects of weather conditions and predator presence on the activity levels of two lizards.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 26397831PubMed |
Collett, R. A., and Fisher, D. O. (2017). Time-lapse camera trapping as an alternative to pitfall trapping for estimating activity of leaf litter arthropods. Ecology and Evolution 7, 7527–7533.
| Time-lapse camera trapping as an alternative to pitfall trapping for estimating activity of leaf litter arthropods.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 28944036PubMed |
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 |
Garden, J. G., McAlpine, C. A., Possingham, H. P., and Jones, D. N. (2007). Using multiple survey methods to detect terrestrial reptiles and mammals: what are the most successful and cost-efficient combinations? Wildlife Research 34, 218–227.
| Using multiple survey methods to detect terrestrial reptiles and mammals: what are the most successful and cost-efficient combinations?Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Gentilli, J. (1989). Climate of the jarrah forest. In ‘The jarrah forest: a complex Mediterranean ecosystem’. (Eds B. Dell, J. J. Havel, and N. Malajczuk.) pp. 23–40. (Kluwer Academic Publishers: Dordrecht, The Netherlands.)
Harvey, P. (2016). ‘ExifTool.’ (Kingston, Ontario, Canada.) Available at http://owl.phy.queensu.ca/~phil/exiftool/. [Verified 29 November 2018]
Matusick, G., Ruthrof, K. X., Fontaine, J. B., and Hardy, G. E. S. J. (2016). Eucalyptus forest shows low structural resistance and resilience to climate change-type drought. Journal of Vegetation Science 27, 493–503.
| Eucalyptus forest shows low structural resistance and resilience to climate change-type drought.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
McCallum, J. (2013). Changing use of camera traps in mammalian field research: habitats, taxa and study types. Mammal Review 43, 196–206.
| Changing use of camera traps in mammalian field research: habitats, taxa and study types.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Meek, P. D., Ballard, G.-A., and Fleming, P. J. S. (2013a). A permanent security post for camera trapping. Australian Mammalogy 35, 123–127.
| A permanent security post for camera trapping.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Meek, P. D., Vernes, K., and Falzon, G. (2013b). 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 |
Molyneux, J., Pavey, C. R., James, A. I., and Carthew, S. M. (2017). The efficacy of monitoring techniques for detecting small mammals and reptiles in arid environments. Wildlife Research 44, 534–545.
| The efficacy of monitoring techniques for detecting small mammals and reptiles in arid environments.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Paull, D. J., Claridge, A. W., and Cunningham, R. B. (2012). Effective detection methods for medium-sized ground-dwelling mammals: a comparison between infrared digital cameras and hair tunnels. Wildlife Research 39, 546–553.
Richardson, E., Nimmo, D. G., Avitabile, S., Tworkowski, L., Watson, S. J., Welbourne, D., and Leonard, S. W. J. (2017). Camera traps and pitfalls: an evaluation of two methods for surveying reptiles in a semiarid ecosystem. Wildlife Research 44, 637–647.
| Camera traps and pitfalls: an evaluation of two methods for surveying reptiles in a semiarid ecosystem.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Ruthrof, K., Matusick, G., and Hardy, G. (2015). Early differential responses of co-dominant canopy species to sudden and severe drought in a Mediterranean-climate type forest. Forests 6, 2082–2091.
| Early differential responses of co-dominant canopy species to sudden and severe drought in a Mediterranean-climate type forest.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Ruthrof, K. X., Fontaine, J. B., Matusick, G., Breshears, D. D., Law, D. J., Powell, S., and Hardy, G. (2016). How drought-induced forest die-off alters microclimate and increases fuel loadings and fire potentials. International Journal of Wildland Fire 25, 819–830.
| How drought-induced forest die-off alters microclimate and increases fuel loadings and fire potentials.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Swan, M., Di Stefano, J., Christie, F., Steel, E., and York, A. (2014). Detecting mammals in heterogeneous landscapes: implications for biodiversity monitoring and management. Biodiversity and Conservation 23, 343–355.
| Detecting mammals in heterogeneous landscapes: implications for biodiversity monitoring and management.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Welbourne, D. (2013). A method for surveying diurnal terrestrial reptiles with passive infrared automatically triggered cameras. Herpetological Review 44, 247–250.
Welbourne, D. J., MacGregor, C., Paull, D., and Lindenmayer, D. B. (2015). The effectiveness and cost of camera traps for surveying small reptiles and critical weight range mammals: a comparison with labour-intensive complementary methods. Wildlife Research 42, 414–425.
| The effectiveness and cost of camera traps for surveying small reptiles and critical weight range mammals: a comparison with labour-intensive complementary methods.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Welbourne, D. J., Claridge, A. W., Paull, D. J., and Lambert, A. (2016). How do passive infrared triggered camera traps operate and why does it matter? Breaking down common misconceptions. Remote Sensing in Ecology and Conservation 2, 77–83.
| How do passive infrared triggered camera traps operate and why does it matter? Breaking down common misconceptions.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
