Estimating the effectiveness of using wildlife cameras versus visual-encounter surveys to detect herpetofauna
Ally K. Brown
A * , Devyn A. Hannon B and John C. Maerz A
A
B
Abstract
Efficient monitoring of herpetofauna can prove challenging to agencies and NGOs responsible for their management. Wildlife cameras have been proposed as a method to monitor herpetofauna; however, estimates of detection rates and factors affecting detection by cameras are generally lacking and therefore limiting their application.
We determined the effect of body size and temperature differential on the detection of snakes and frogs by passive infrared (PIR) wildlife cameras. We hypothesised that detection would differ among models and be positively correlated with body size and surface-temperature differential between the animal and substrate. We then conducted a field study to compare the detection of herpetofauna by a traditional method with PIR cameras.
We tested 10 cameras of seven models on five snakes and one camera on six frogs. Photographs were downloaded to determine the detection rate of each species by each camera. We then chose a camera model to compare two herpetofauna survey methods, namely, drift fences equipped with cameras and visual-encounter surveys. Surveys were conducted monthly over 12 months in Irwin County, GA, USA.
The highest mean detection rates of snakes were 0.65 (s.e. = 0.33), 0.50 (s.e. = 0.34), and 0.49 (s.e. = 0.34) for the Browning Dark Ops, Reconyx Hyperfire 2, and Mossy Oak Covert Scouting Camera respectively. The detectability of larger snakes was greater than that of smaller snakes and increased as the absolute temperature differences between the snake and the substrate increased. The detectability of frogs was influenced by absolute temperature differential alone. PIR cameras generated five times more observations, documented more herpetofauna species, and were seven times more efficient than traditional surveys.
The effectiveness of PIR cameras to detect herpetofauna varies among models and depends on the likelihood that the animal will have a body temperature significantly different from the temperature of the substrate. PIR cameras generated observations far more efficiently than traditional sampling methods.
PIR wildlife cameras may be most effective at detecting larger, diurnal herpetofauna and least effective at detecting smaller, nocturnal species. Wildlife cameras have the potential to efficiently monitor some herpetofauna, providing a means to better evaluate management objectives.
Keywords: applied ecology, behavior, conservation ecology, ecology, management strategies, population biology, population ecology, population management, recognition, threatened species, vertebrates, wildlife management.
References
Amber ED, Lipps GJ, Jr, Peterman WE (2021) Evaluation of the AHDriFT camera trap system to survey for small mammals and herpetofauna. Journal of Fish and Wildlife Management 12, 197-207.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Anile S, Devillard S (2016) Study design and body mass influence RAIs from camera trap studies: evidence from the Felidae. Animal Conservation 19, 35-45.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Apps P, McNutt JW (2018) Are camera traps fit for purpose? A rigorous, reproducible and realistic test of camera trap performance. African Journal of Ecology 56, 710-720.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Ariefiandy A, Purwandana D, Seno A, Ciofi C, Jessop TS (2013) Can camera traps monitor Komodo dragons a large ectothermic predator? PLoS ONE 8, e58800.
| Crossref | Google Scholar | PubMed |
Bash JS, Ryan CM (2002) Stream restoration and enhancement projects: is anyone monitoring? Environmental Management 29(6), 877-885.
| Crossref | Google Scholar | PubMed |
Block WM, Franklin AB, Ward JP, Jr, Ganey JL, White GC (2001) Design and implementation of monitoring studies to evaluate the success of ecological restoration on wildlife. Restoration Ecology 9, 293-303.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Boynton MK, Toenies M, Cornelius N, Rich LN (2021) Comparing camera traps and visual encounter surveys for monitoring small animals. California Fish and Wildlife 107(2), 99-117.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Brattstrom BH (1979) Amphibian temperature regulation studies in the field and laboratory. American Zoologist 19(1), 345-356.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Cooke SJ, Bennett JR, Jones HP (2019) We have a long way to go if we want to realize the promise of the ‘Decade on Ecosystem Restoration’. Conservation Science and Practice 1, e129.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Cristescu RH, Frère C, Banks PB (2012) A review of fauna in mine rehabilitation in Australia: current state and future directions. Biological Conservation 149(1), 60-72.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Cross SL, Tomlinson S, Craig MD, Dixon KW, Bateman PW (2019) Overlooked and undervalued: the neglected role of fauna and a global bias in ecological restoration assessments. Pacific Conservation Biology 25(4), 331-341.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Driessen MM, Jarman PJ, Troy S, Callander S (2017) Animal detections vary among commonly used camera trap models. Wildlife Research 44(4), 291-297.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Elphick CS (2008) How you count counts: the importance of methods research in applied ecology. Journal of Applied Ecology 45(5), 1313-1320.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Enge KM (2001) The pitfalls of pitfall traps. Journal of Herpetology 35, 467-478.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Enge KM, Wood KN (2002) A pedestrian road survey of an upland snake community in Florida. Southeastern Naturalist 1(4), 365-380.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Greenberg CH, Neary DG, Harris LD (1994) A comparison of herpetofaunal sampling effectiveness of pitfall, single-ended, and double-ended funnel traps used with drift fences. Journal of Herpetology 28(3), 319-324.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Halliday W, Blouin-Demers G (2015) Efficacy of coverboards for sampling small northern snakes. Herpetology Notes 8, 309-314.
| Google Scholar |
Hendry H, Mann C (2017) Camelot–intuitive software for camera trap data management. BioRxiv 203216.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Hilderbrand RH, Watts AC, Randle AM (2005) The myths of restoration ecology. Ecology and Society 10, 19.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Hobbs MT, Brehme CS (2017) An improved camera trap for amphibians, reptiles, small mammals, and large invertebrates. PLoS ONE 12(10), e0185026.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Hofmeester TR, Cromsigt JPGM, Odden J, Andrén H, Kindberg J, Linnell JDC (2019) Framing pictures: a conceptual framework to identify and correct for biases in detection probability of camera traps enabling multi-species comparison. Ecology and Evolution 9(4), 2320-2336.
| Crossref | Google Scholar | PubMed |
Hughson DL, Darby NW, Dungan JD (2010) Comparison of motion-activated cameras for wildlife investigations. California Fish and Game 96, 101-109.
| Google Scholar |
Jacobs CE, Ausband DE (2018) An evaluation of camera trap performance – what are we missing and does deployment height matter? Remote Sensing in Ecology and Conservation 4(4), 352-360.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Kjoss VA, Litvaitis JA (2001) Comparison of two methods to sample snake communities in early successional habitats. Wildlife Society Bulletin 29, 153-157.
| Google Scholar |
Klauber LM (1939) Studies of reptile life in the arid southwest, Part I. Night collecting in the desert with ecological statistics. Bulletin of the Zoological Society of San Diego 14, 2-64.
| Google Scholar |
Marcus Rowcliffe J, Carbone C, Jansen PA, Kays R, Kranstauber B (2011) Quantifying the sensitivity of camera traps: an adapted distance sampling approach. Methods in Ecology and Evolution 2, 464-476.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Martin SA, Rautsaw RM, Robb F, Bolt MR, Parkinson CL, Seigel RA (2017) Set AHDriFT: applying game cameras to drift fences for surveying herpetofauna and small mammals. Wildlife Society Bulletin 41(4), 804-809.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Mazerolle MJ (2023) AICcmodavg: Model selection and multimodel inference based on (Q)AIC(c). R package version 2.3.2. Available at https://cran.r-project.org/package=AICcmodavg
MCCleery RA, Zweig CL, Desa MA, Hunt R, Kitchens WM, Percival HF (2014) A novel method for camera-trapping small mammals. Wildlife Society Bulletin 38(4), 887-891.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
McIntyre T, Majelantle TL, Slip DJ, Harcourt RG (2020) Quantifying imperfect camera-trap detection probabilities: implications for density modelling. Wildlife Research 47(2), 177-185.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Méndez-Toribio M, Martínez-Garza C, Ceccon E (2021) Challenges during the execution, results, and monitoring phases of ecological restoration: learning from a country-wide assessment. PLoS ONE 16(4), e0249573.
| Crossref | Google Scholar | PubMed |
Munro NT, Lindenmayer DB, Fischer J (2007) Faunal response to revegetation in agricultural areas of Australia: a review. Ecological Management & Restoration 8, 199-207.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Neuharth DB, Ryberg WA, Adams CS, Hibbitts TJ, Walkup DK, Frizzell SL, Johnson TE, Pierce BL, Pierce JB, Rudolph DC (2020) Searching for rare and secretive snakes: are camera-trap and box-trap methods interchangeable? Wildlife Research 47(6), 476-484.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Pagnucco KS, Paszkowski CA, Scrimgeour GJ (2011) Using cameras to monitor tunnel use by long-toed salamanders (Ambystoma macrodactylum): an informative, cost-efficient technique. Herpetological Conservation and Biology 6(2), 277-286.
| Google Scholar |
Palencia P, Vicente J, Soriguer RC, Acevedo P (2022) Towards a best-practices guide for camera trapping: assessing differences among camera trap models and settings under field conditions. Journal of Zoology 316(3), 197-208.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
R Core Team (2021) ‘R: a language and environment for statistical computing.’ (R Foundation for Statistical Computing: Vienna, Austria) Available at https://www.R-project.org/
Richardson E, Nimmo DG, Avitabile S, Tworkowski L, Watson SJ, Welbourne D, Leonard SWJ (2018) Camera traps and pitfalls: an evaluation of two methods for surveying reptiles in a semiarid ecosystem. Wildlife Research 44(8), 637-647.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Ryberg WA, Walkup DK, Hibbits TJ, Pittman W, Porter VH, Bowers BC, Fielder CM, Brown P, Lopez RR, Preston JR, Johnson JT, Hagedorn BW (2021) Effective camera trap snake surveys at a rarely accessible longleaf pine savanna. Herpetological Review 52(4), 719-724.
| Google Scholar |
Stokeld D, Frank ASK, Hill B, Choy JL, Mahney T, Stevens A, Young S, Rangers D, Rangers W, Gillespie GR (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.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Suding KN (2011) Toward an era of restoration in ecology: successes, failures, and opportunities ahead. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics 42, 465-487.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Thompson SA, Thompson GG, Withers PC (2008) Rehabilitation index for evaluating restoration of terrestrial ecosystems using the reptile assemblage as the bio-indicator. Ecological Indicators 8(5), 530-549.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Tobler MW, Carrillo-Percastegui SE, Leite Pitman R, Mares R, Powell G (2008) An evaluation of camera traps for inventorying large-and medium-sized terrestrial rainforest mammals. Animal Conservation 11(3), 169-178.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Trolliet F, Huynen MC, Vermeulen C, Hambuckers A (2014) Use of camera traps for wildlife studies: a review. Biotechnologie, Agronomie, Société et Environnement 18(3), 446-454.
| Google Scholar |
Uhe L, Albrecht K, Schleicher A, Engler JO (2020) Adjusting trail cameras to improve monitoring of small open cup nesting birds. Journal of Ornithology 161(3), 893-899.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Vélez J, McShea W, Shamon H, Castiblanco-Camacho PJ, Tabak MA, Chalmers C, Fergus P, Fieberg J (2023) An evaluation of platforms for processing camera-trap data using artificial intelligence. Methods in Ecology and Evolution 14(2), 459-477.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
Welbourne DJ (2013) A method for surveying diurnal terrestrial reptiles with passive infrared automatically triggered cameras. Herpetological Review 44, 247-250.
| Google Scholar |
Welbourne DJ, Claridge AW, Paull DJ, Ford F (2019) Improving terrestrial squamate surveys with camera-trap programming and hardware modifications. Animals 9(6), 388.
| Crossref | Google Scholar | PubMed |
Welsh HH, Jr, Hodgson GR (2008) Amphibians as metrics of critical biological thresholds in forested headwater streams of the Pacific Northwest, USA. Freshwater Biology 53, 1470-1488.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |
