High variation in camera trap-model sensitivity for surveying mammal species in northern Australia
Jaime Heiniger
A B D and Graeme Gillespie A C
A Flora and Fauna Division, Department of Land Resource Management, 25 Chung Wah Terrace, Palmerston, NT 0830, Australia.
B School of Biological Sciences, The University of Queensland, St Lucia, Qld 4072, Australia.
C School of Biosciences, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, Vic. 3010, Australia.
D Corresponding author. Email: j.heiniger@uq.edu.au
Wildlife Research 45(7) 578-585 https://doi.org/10.1071/WR18078
Submitted: 1 May 2018 Accepted: 15 August 2018 Published: 30 October 2018
Abstract
Context: The use of camera traps as a wildlife survey tool has rapidly increased, and understanding the strengths and weaknesses of the technology is imperative to assess the degree to which research objectives are met.
Aims: We evaluated the differences in performance among three Reconyx camera-trap models, namely, a custom-modified high-sensitivity PC850, and unmodified PC850 and HC550.
Methods: We undertook a controlled field trial to compare the performance of the three models on Groote Eylandt, Northern Territory, by observing the ability of each model to detect the removal of a bait by native mammals. We compared variation in detecting the known event, trigger numbers, proportion of false triggers and the difference in detection probability of small to medium-sized mammals.
Key results: The high-sensitivity PC850 model detected bait take 75% of the time, as opposed to 33.3% and 20% for the respective unmodified models. The high-sensitivity model also increased the detection probability of the smallest mammal species from 0.09 to 0.34. However, there was no significant difference in detection probability for medium-sized mammals.
Conclusions: Despite the three Reconyx camera models having similar manufacturer-listed specifications, they varied substantially in their performance. The high-sensitivity model vastly improved the detection of known events and the detection probability of small mammals in northern Australia.
Implications: Failure to consider variation in camera-trap performance can lead to inaccurate conclusions when multiple camera models are used. Consequently, researchers should carefully consider the parameters and capabilities of camera models in study designs. Camera models and their configurations should be reported in methods, and variation in detection probabilities among different models and configurations should be incorporated into analyses.
Additional keywords: detection, monitoring, performance, Reconyx, technology.
References
Bates, D., Maechler, M., Bolker, B., and Walker, S. (2015). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software 67, 1–48.| Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Bureau of Meteorology (2017). ‘Climate Data Online.’ Available at http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/data/ [accessed 20 August 2017].
Burnham, K. P., and Anderson, D. R. (2002). ‘Model Selection and Multimodel Inference: a Practical Information-theoretic Approach.’ (Springer: New York, NY.)
Claridge, A. W., Paull, D. J., and Barry, S. C. (2010). Detection of medium-sized ground-dwelling mammals using infrared digital cameras: an alternative way forward? Australian Mammalogy 32, 165–171.
| Detection of medium-sized ground-dwelling mammals using infrared digital cameras: an alternative way forward?Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
De Bondi, N., White, J., 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 |
Driessen, M. M., Jarman, P. J., Troy, S., and Callander, S. (2017). Animal detections vary among commonly used camera trap models. Wildlife Research 44, 291–297.
| Animal detections vary among commonly used camera trap models.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Fiske, I., and Chandler, R. (2011). Unmarked: an R package for fitting hierarchical models of wildlife occurrence and abundance. Journal of Statistical Software 43, 1–23.
| Unmarked: an R package for fitting hierarchical models of wildlife occurrence and abundance.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Gillespie, G. R., Brennan, K., Gentles, T., Hill, B., Low Choy, J., Mahney, T., Stevens, A., and Stokeld, D. (2015). ‘A Guide for the Use of Remote Cameras for Wildlife Survey in Northern Australia.’ (National Environmental Research Program, Northern Australia Hub: Charles Darwin University, Casuarina, NT.)
Glen, A., Cockburn, S., Nichols, M., Ekanayake, J., and Warburton, B. (2013). Optimising camera traps for monitoring small mammals. PLoS One 8, e67940.
| Optimising camera traps for monitoring small mammals.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Heiniger, J., Cameron, S., and Gillespie, G. (2018). Evaluation of risks for two native mammal species from feral cat baiting in monsoonal tropical northern Australia. Wildlife Research 45, 518–527.
| Evaluation of risks for two native mammal species from feral cat baiting in monsoonal tropical northern Australia.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Hughson, D., Darby, N. W., and Dungan, J. D. (2010). Comparison of motion-activated cameras for wildlife investigations. California Fish and Game 96, 101–109.
Jumeau, J., Petrod, L., and Handrich, Y. (2017). A comparison of camera trap and permanent recording video camera efficiency in wildlife underpasses. Ecology and Evolution 7, 7399–7407.
| A comparison of camera trap and permanent recording video camera efficiency in wildlife underpasses.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
MacKenzie, D. I., Nichols, J. D., Lachman, G. B., Droege, S., Andrew Royle, J., and Langtimm, C. A. (2002). Estimating site occupancy rates when detection probabilities are less than one. Ecology 83, 2248–2255.
| Estimating site occupancy rates when detection probabilities are less than one.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Meek, P., Ballard, G., and Fleming, P. (2012). ‘An Introduction to Camera Trapping for Wildlife Surveys in Australia.’ (Invasive Animals Cooperative Research Centre: Canberra, ACT.)
Meek, P., Fleming, P., Ballard, G., Banks, P., Claridge, A., Sanderson, J., and Swann, D. (Eds) (2014). ‘Camera Trapping: Wildlife Management and Research.’ (CSIRO Publishing: Melbourne, Vic.)
Meek, P. D., Ballard, G.-A., and Fleming, P. J. S. (2015a). 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 |
Meek, P. D., Ballard, G.-A., Vernes, K., and Fleming, P. J. S. (2015b). The history of wildlife camera trapping as a survey tool in Australia. Australian Mammalogy 37, 1–12.
| The history of wildlife camera trapping as a survey tool in Australia.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
R Development Core Team (2011). ‘R: a Language and Environment for Statistical Computing.’ (The R Foundation for statistical computing: Vienna, Austria)
Reconyx (2018). ‘Reconyx Professional Series.’ Available at http://www.reconyx.com/product/Professional_Series [accessed 1 July 2018].
Rovero, F., Zimmermann, F., Berzi, D., and Meek, P. (2013). ‘Which camera trap type and how many do I need?’ A review of camera features and study designs for a range of wildlife research applications. Hystrix, the Italian Journal of Mammalogy 24, 148–156.
| ‘Which camera trap type and how many do I need?’ A review of camera features and study designs for a range of wildlife research applications.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Smith, J., Legge, S., James, A., and Tuft, K. (2017). Optimising camera trap deployment design across multiple sites for species inventory surveys. Pacific Conservation Biology 23, 43–51.
| Optimising camera trap deployment design across multiple sites for species inventory surveys.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Stokeld, D., Frank, A. S. K., Hill, B., Choy, J. L., Mahney, T., Stevens, A., Young, S., Rangers, D., Rangers, W., and Gillespie, G. R. (2015). Multiple cameras required to reliably detect feral cats in northern Australian tropical savanna: an evaluation of sampling design when using camera traps. Wildlife Research 42, 642–649.
| Multiple cameras required to reliably detect feral cats in northern Australian tropical savanna: an evaluation of sampling design when using camera traps.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
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 |
Tattersall, G. J., and Cadena, V. (2010). Insights into animal temperature adaptations revealed through thermal imaging. Imaging Science Journal 58, 261–268.
| Insights into animal temperature adaptations revealed through thermal imaging.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Tobler, M. W., Carrillo-Percastegui, S. E., Leite Pitman, R., Mares, R., and Powell, G. (2008). An evaluation of camera traps for inventorying large- and medium-sized terrestrial rainforest mammals. Animal Conservation 11, 169–178.
| An evaluation of camera traps for inventorying large- and medium-sized terrestrial rainforest mammals.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
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, P. Fleming, G. Ballard, P. Banks, A. Claridge, J. Sanderson and D. Swann) pp. 111–121. (CSIRO Publishing: Melbourne, Vic.)
Wearn, O., and Glover-Kapfer, P. (2017). ‘Camera-trapping for Conservation: a Guide to Best-practices.’ (WWF-UK: Woking, UK.)
Weingarth, K., Zimmermann, F., Knauer, F., and Heurich, M. (2013). Evaluation of six digital camera models for the use in capture–recapture sampling of Eurasian lynx. Waldokologie Online 13, 87–92.
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 |
Wellington, K., Bottom, C., Merrill, C., and Litvaitis, J. A. (2014). Identifying performance differences among trail cameras used to monitor forest mammals. Wildlife Society Bulletin 38, 634–638.
| Identifying performance differences among trail cameras used to monitor forest mammals.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
