Camera trap flash-type does not influence the behaviour of feral cats (Felis catus)
Patrick L. Taggart
A E , David E. Peacock A B and Bronwyn A. Fancourt C D
A School of Animal and Veterinary Sciences, The University of Adelaide, Roseworthy, SA 5371, Australia.
B Biosecurity South Australia, Adelaide, SA 5001, Australia.
C Vertebrate Pest Research Unit, Department of Primary Industries, Armidale, NSW 2350, Australia.
D School of Environmental and Rural Science, University of New England, Armidale, NSW 2350, Australia.
E Corresponding author. Email: patrick.taggart@adelaide.edu.au
Australian Mammalogy 42(2) 220-222 https://doi.org/10.1071/AM18056
Submitted: 24 December 2018 Accepted: 16 August 2019 Published: 11 September 2019
Abstract
Camera traps are now the most commonly used technique for indexing feral cat (Felis catus) and predator populations. Camera flash-type has been suggested to influence an animal's behaviour and their redetection by similar cameras, with white-flash cameras being shown to reduce the probability of redetecting some species. We investigated the influence of camera flash-type on the behaviour of feral cats by categorising their behavioural response to white-flash and infrared-flash cameras and assessing the frequency with which individual cats were redetected by the same white-flash camera or a different white-flash camera at the same site following their initial detection. We found no evidence that flash type had any influence on the cats’ observed behavioural responses towards cameras, or that cats captured by white-flash cameras avoided redetection. Our findings suggest that white-flash cameras are suitable for the detection and redetection of cats, and provide better-quality images from which to identify individual cats.
Additional keywords: avoidance, detect, feline, invasive species, monitor, pest
References
Bengsen, A., Butler, J., and Masters, P. (2011). Estimating and indexing feral cat population abundances using camera traps. Wildlife Research 38, 732–739.| Estimating and indexing feral cat population abundances using camera traps.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Burton, A. C., Neilson, E., Moreira, D., Ladle, A., Steenweg, R., Fisher, J. T., Bayne, E., and Boutin, S. (2015). Wildlife camera trapping: a review and recommendations for linking surveys to ecological processes. Journal of Applied Ecology 52, 675–685.
| Wildlife camera trapping: a review and recommendations for linking surveys to ecological processes.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Cove, M. V., and Jackson, V. L. (2011). Differences in detection probability between camera trap types for surveying bobcats in a fragmented suburban landscape. Wild Felid Monitor 4, 24.
Fancourt, B. A., Sweaney, M., and Fletcher, D. B. (2018). More haste, less speed: pilot study suggests camera trap detection zone could be more important than trigger speed to maximise species detections. Australian Mammalogy 40, 118–121.
| More haste, less speed: pilot study suggests camera trap detection zone could be more important than trigger speed to maximise species detections.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Gekeler, F., Shinoda, K., Blatsios, G., Werner, A., and Zrenner, E. (2006). Scotopic threshold responses to infrared irradiation in cats. Vision Research 46, 357–364.
| Scotopic threshold responses to infrared irradiation in cats.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 16081127PubMed |
Gese, E. M. (2001). Monitoring of terrestrial carnivore populations. In ‘Carnivore Conservation’. (Eds J. L. Gittleman, S. M. Funk, D. W. MacDonald, and R. K. Wayne.) pp. 372–396. (Cambridge University Press & The Zoological Society of London: Cambridge.)
Glen, A. S., 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 | 24039978PubMed |
Legge, S., Murphy, B., McGregor, H., Woinarski, J., Augusteyn, J., Ballard, G., Baseler, M., Buckmaster, T., Dickman, C., Doherty, T., Edwards, G., Eyre, T., Fancourt, B. A., Ferguson, D., Maxwell, M., McDonald, P. J., Morris, K., Moseby, K., Newsome, T., Nimmo, D., Paltridge, R., Ramsey, D., Read, J., Rendall, A., Rich, M., Ritchie, E., Rowland, J., Short, J., Stokeld, D., Sutherland, D. R., Wayne, A. F., Woodford, L., and Zewe, F. (2017). Enumerating a continental-scale threat: how many feral cats are in Australia? Biological Conservation 206, 293–303.
| Enumerating a continental-scale threat: how many feral cats are in Australia?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 |
McGregor, H. W., Legge, S., Potts, J., Jones, M. E., and Johnson, C. N. (2015). Density and home range of feral cats in north-western Australia. Wildlife Research 42, 223–231.
| Density and home range of feral cats in north-western Australia.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Meek, P. D., Ballard, G.-A., and Fleming, P. J. (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., Fleming, P. J., Schaefer, M., Williams, W., and Falzon, G. (2014). Camera traps can be heard and seen by animals. PLoS One 9, e110832.
| Camera traps can be heard and seen by animals.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 25354356PubMed |
Meek, P. D., Ballard, G.-A., Vernes, K., and Fleming, P. J. (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 |
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 24, 148–156.
Schipper, J. (2007). Camera-trap avoidance by kinkajous Potos flavus: rethinking the “non-invasive” paradigm. Small Carnivore Conservation 36, 38–41.
Taggart, P. L., Fancourt, B. A., Bengsen, A. J., Peacock, D. E., Hodgens, P., Read, J. L., McAllister, M. M., and Caraguel, C. G. B. (2019). Evidence of significantly higher island feral cat abundance compared to the adjacent mainland. Wildlife Research 46, 378–385.
| Evidence of significantly higher island feral cat abundance compared to the adjacent mainland.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
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 |
