Effects of different attractants and human scent on mesocarnivore detection at camera traps
Bracy W. Heinlein A , Rachael E. Urbanek
A C , Colleen Olfenbuttel B and Casey G. Dukes B
A University of North Carolina Wilmington, Department of Environmental Sciences, 601 S. College Road, Wilmington, NC 28403, USA.
B North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, North Carolina State University Centennial Campus, 1751 Varsity Drive, Raleigh, NC 27606, USA.
C Corresponding author. Email: urbanekr@uncw.edu
Wildlife Research 47(4) 338-348 https://doi.org/10.1071/WR19117
Submitted: 10 July 2019 Accepted: 3 January 2020 Published: 29 May 2020
Abstract
Context: Camera traps paired with baits and scented lures can be used to monitor mesocarnivore populations, but not all attractants are equally effective. Several studies have investigated the efficacy of different attractants on the success of luring mesocarnivores to camera traps; fewer studies have examined the effect of human scent at camera traps.
Aims: We sought to determine the effects of human scent, four attractants and the interaction between attractants and human scent in luring mesocarnivores to camera traps.
Methods: We compared the success of synthetic fermented egg (SFE), fatty acid scent (FAS) tablets, castor oil, and sardines against a control of no attractant in luring mesocarnivores to camera traps. We deployed each attractant and the control with either no regard to masking human scent or attempting to restrict human scent for a total of 10 treatments, and replicated treatments eight to nine times in two different phases. We investigated whether: (1) any attractants increased the probability of capturing a mesocarnivore at a camera trap; (2) not masking human scent affected the probability of capturing a mesocarnivore at a camera trap; and (3) any attractants increased the probability of repeat detections at a given camera trap. We also analysed the behaviour (i.e. speed and distance to attractant) of each mesocarnivore in relation to the attractants.
Key results: Sardines improved capture success compared with the control treatments, whereas SFE, castor oil, and FAS tablets had no effect when all mesocarnivores were included in the analyses. Masking human scent did not affect detection rates in the multispecies analyses. Individually, the detection of some species depended on the interactions between masking (or not masking) human scent and some attractants.
Conclusions: Sardines were the most effective as a broad-based attractant for mesocarnivores. Mesocarnivores approached traps baited with sardines at slower rates, which allows for a higher success of capturing an image of the animal.
Implications: Human scent may not need to be masked when deploying camera traps for multispecies mesocarnivore studies, but researchers should be aware that individual species respond differently to attractants and may have higher capture success with species-specific attractants.
Additional keywords: bobcat, Canis latrans, castor oil, coyote, Didelphis virginiana, fatty-acid scent tablet, grey fox, Lynx rufus, opossum, Procyon lotor, raccoon, red fox, sardine, synthetic fermented egg, Urocyon cinereoargenteus, Vulpes vulpes.
References
Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies (AFWA) (2005). ‘Trapper Education Manual: A Guide for Trappers in the United States.’ (AFWA: Washington DC, USA.)Bullard, C. W., and Herendeen, R. A. (1975). Energy impact of consumption decisions. Proceedings of the IEEE 63, 484–493.
| Energy impact of consumption decisions.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Bullard, R. W., Shumake, S. A., Campbell, D. L., and Turkowski, F. J. (1978). Preparation and evaluation of a synthetic fermented egg coyote attractant and deer repellent. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry 26, 160–163.
| Preparation and evaluation of a synthetic fermented egg coyote attractant and deer repellent.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 |
Carbone, C., Christie, S., Conforti, K., Coulson, T., Franklin, N., Ginsberg, J. R., Griffiths, M., Holden, J., Kawaishi, K., Kinnaird, M., Laidlaw, R., Lynam, A., Macdonald, D. W., Martyr, D., McDougal, C., Nath, L., O’Brien, T., Seidensticker, J., Smith, D. J. L., Sunquist, M., Tilson, R., and Wan Shahruddin, W. N. (2001). The use of photographic rates to estimate densities of tigers and other cryptic mammals. Animal Conservation 4, 75–79.
| The use of photographic rates to estimate densities of tigers and other cryptic mammals.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
DeVault, T. L., Brisbin, L., and Rhodes, O. E. (2004). Factors influencing the acquisition of rodent carrion by vertebrate scavengers and decomposers. Canadian Journal of Zoology 82, 502–509.
| Factors influencing the acquisition of rodent carrion by vertebrate scavengers and decomposers.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Ferreras, P., Díaz-Ruiz, F., and Monterroso, P. (2018). Improving mesocarnivore detectability with lures in camera-trapping studies. Wildlife Research 45, 505–517.
| Improving mesocarnivore detectability with lures in camera-trapping studies.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
George, S. L., and Crooks, K. R. (2006). Recreation and large mammal activity in an urban nature reserve. Biological Conservation 133, 107–117.
| Recreation and large mammal activity in an urban nature reserve.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Gese, E. M. (2004). Survey and census techniques for canids. USDA National Wildlife Research Center – Staff Publications, Paper 337. Available at http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/icwdm_usdanwrc/337 [verified 14 September 2017].
Gompper, E. M., Roland, R. W., Ray, J. C., Lapoint, S. D., Bogan, D. A., and Cryan, J. R. (2006). A comparison of noninvasive techniques to survey carnivore communities in northeastern North America. Wildlife Society Bulletin 34, 1142–1151.
| A comparison of noninvasive techniques to survey carnivore communities in northeastern North America.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Hamlett, M. (2015). Holly Shelter Game Land management plan. Submitted to the North Carolina Wildlife Resource Commission, Raleigh, NC. Available at https://www.ncwildlife.org/Portals/0/Hunting/GameLand-Plans/Holly-Shelter-GLMP.pdf [verified 12 March 2020].
Larrucea, E. S., Brussard, P. F., Jaeger, M. M., and Barrett, R. H. (2007). Cameras, coyotes, and the assumption of equal detectability. The Journal of Wildlife Management 71, 1682–1689.
| Cameras, coyotes, and the assumption of equal detectability.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Lesmeister, D. B., and Nielsen, C. K. (2011). Protocol for large-scale monitoring of riparian mammals. Wildlife Biology in Practice 7, 55–70.
| Protocol for large-scale monitoring of riparian mammals.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Lesmeister, D. B., Nielsen, C. K., Schauber, E. M., and Hellgren, E. C. (2015). Spatial and temporal structure of a mesocarnivore guild in midwestern North America. Wildlife Monographs 191, 1–61.
| Spatial and temporal structure of a mesocarnivore guild in midwestern North America.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Link, R. (2004). ‘Living with Wildlife in the Pacific Northwest.’ (University of Washington Press: Seattle, WA, USA.)
McCoy, L. C., Ditchkoff, S. S., and Steury, T. D. (2011). Bias associated with baited camera sites for assessing population characteristics of deer. The Journal of Wildlife Management 75, 472–477.
| Bias associated with baited camera sites for assessing population characteristics of deer.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Muñoz, D., Kapfer, J., and Olfenbuttel, C. (2014). Do available products to mask human scent influence camera trap survey results? Wildlife Biology 20, 246–252.
| Do available products to mask human scent influence camera trap survey results?Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) (2018). What is a pocosin? Available at https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/pocosin.html [verified 12 March 2020].
Nielsen, C. K., and Cooper, S. E. (2012). Comparison of methods to detect mesocarnivores in southern Illinois. Transactions of the Illinois State Academy of Science. Illinois State Academy of Science 105, 119–125.
Noonan, B. (2013). Castor: a universal attractor. Trapper & Predator Caller. Available at https://www.trapperpredatorcaller.com/feature-archives/castor_a_universal_attractor [verified 2 December 2018].
O’Connell, A. F., Nichols, J. D., and Karanth, K. U. (2011). ‘Camera Traps in Animal Ecology: Methods and Analyses.’ (Springer: Heidelberg, Germany.)
Oliveira-Santos, L. G. R., Tortato, M. A., and Graipel, M. E. (2008). Activity pattern of Atlantic Forest small arboreal mammals as revealed by camera traps. Journal of Tropical Ecology 24, 563–567.
| Activity pattern of Atlantic Forest small arboreal mammals as revealed by camera traps.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Roughton, R. D. (1982). A synthetic alternative to fermented egg as a canid attractant. The Journal of Wildlife Management 46, 230–234.
| A synthetic alternative to fermented egg as a canid attractant.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Rovero, F., Zimmermann, F., Berzei, 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.
Rowcliffe, J. M., and Carbone, C. (2008). Surveys using camera traps: are we looking to a brighter future? Animal Conservation 11, 185–186.
| Surveys using camera traps: are we looking to a brighter future?Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Schlexer, F. (2008). Attracting animals to detection devices. In ‘Noninvasive Survey Methods for Carnivores’. (Eds R. Long, P. MacKay, J. Ray, and W. Zielinski.) pp. 263–292. (Island Press: Washington, DC, USA.)
Silver, S. C., Ostro, L. E. T., Marsh, L. K., Maffei, L., Noss, A. J., Kelly, M. J., Wallace, R. B., Gomez, H., and Ayala, G. (2004). The use of camera traps for estimating jaguar Panthera once abundance and density using capture/recapture analysis. Oryx 38, 148–154.
| The use of camera traps for estimating jaguar Panthera once abundance and density using capture/recapture analysis.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Travaini, A., Laffitte, R., and Delibes, M. (1996). Determining the relative abundance of European red foxes by scent-station methodology. Wildlife Society Bulletin 4, 500–504.
Urbanek, R. E., Ferreira, H. J., Olfenbuttel, C., Dukes, C. G., and Albers, G. (2019). See what you’ve been missing: an assessment of Reconyx® cameras. Wildlife Society Bulletin 43, 630–638.
| See what you’ve been missing: an assessment of Reconyx® cameras.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Vine, S. J., Crowther, M. S., Lapidge, S. J., Dickman, C. R., Mooney, N., Piggott, M. P., and English, A. W. (2009). Comparison of methods to detect rare and cryptic species: a case study using the red fox (Vulpes vulpes). Wildlife Research 36, 436–446.
| Comparison of methods to detect rare and cryptic species: a case study using the red fox (Vulpes vulpes).Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Zaiontz, C. (2018). Real statistics using Excel. Available at www.real-statistics.com [verified 12 March 2020].
