The influence of camera-trap flash type on the behavioural response, detection rate and individual recognition of Eld’s deer
Rachel Ladd
A * , Paul Meek A B and Luke K.-P. Leung A
A School of Agriculture and Food Sciences, The University of Queensland, Gatton, Qld 4343, Australia.
B Vertebrate Pest Research Unit, NSW Department of Primary Industries, PO Box 530, Coffs Harbour, NSW 2450, Australia.
Wildlife Research - https://doi.org/10.1071/WR22055
Submitted: 20 March 2022 Accepted: 2 August 2022 Published online: 31 August 2022
© 2022 The Author(s) (or their employer(s)). Published by CSIRO Publishing. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC-ND)
Abstract
Context: Camera traps are available with infrared or white flash, with the former being more commonly used. However, white flash produces colour night-time photographs that can be critically useful for both species and individual identification. White flash was thought to cause more disturbance to wildlife than was infrared and this may lead to camera avoidance. Evaluating the extent of this response, and differences between the flash types, is useful to develop improved survey designs.
Aims: This research aimed to quantify the behavioural responses of Eld’s deer to white and infrared flash, to determine whether white-flash cameras were suitable for use in population surveys of this species.
Methods: A behavioural ethogram was used to quantify the responses of the deer to the two flash types, as well as the responses of different sex-age classes and group sizes when encountering a camera trap. Additionally, the detection rate for white flash and infrared flash cameras was compared through time, to determine any pattern of avoidance.
Key results: While deer were more likely to observe and be startled by white flash than infrared, this did not adversely affect the detection of the deer, with no significant change in the detection rate between the two different flash types over time. Group size was found not to influence behavioural response when encountering camera traps, whereas different age–sex classes of deer showed very few differences in response to camera traps.
Conclusions: White flash cameras were found to be suitable for Eld’s deer population surveys and were beneficial in providing colour night-time photos that allow for spotted female deer to be individually identified.
Implications: Practitioners should not be concerned about the influence of white flash when using camera traps to monitor populations of Eld’s deer, and using white flash is recommended when individual identification is required.
Keywords: animal behaviour, avoidance, camera trap, deer, detection, flash type, monitoring bias, wildlife monitoring.
References
Aung, M, McShea, WJ, Htung, S, Than, A, Soe, TM, Monfort, S, and Wemmer, C (2001). Ecology and social organization of a tropical deer (Cervus eldi thamin). Journal of Mammalogy 82, 836–847.| Ecology and social organization of a tropical deer (Cervus eldi thamin).Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Borchers, DL, and Efford, MG (2008). Spatially explicit maximum likelihood methods for capture–recapture studies. Biometrics 64, 377–385.
| Spatially explicit maximum likelihood methods for capture–recapture studies.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Brooks, ME, Kristensen, K, van Benthem, KJ, Magnusson, A, Berg, CW, Nielsen, A, Skaug, HJ, Maechler, M, and Bolker, BM (2017). glmmTMB balances speed and flexibility among packages for zero-inglated generalized linear mixed modeling. The R Journal 9, 378–400.
| glmmTMB balances speed and flexibility among packages for zero-inglated generalized linear mixed modeling.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Chandler, RB, and Royle, JA (2013). Spatially explicit models for inference about density in unmarked or partially marked populations. The Annals of Applied Statistics 7, 936–954.
| Spatially explicit models for inference about density in unmarked or partially marked populations.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Després-Einspenner, M-L, Howe, EJ, Drapeau, P, and Kühl, HS (2017). An empirical evaluation of camera trapping and spatially explicit capture–recapture models for estimating chimpanzee density. American Journal of Primatology 79, e22647.
| An empirical evaluation of camera trapping and spatially explicit capture–recapture models for estimating chimpanzee density.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Dorai-Raj S (2014) binom: binomial confidence intervals for several parameterizations. R package (version 1.1-1). Available at http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=binom
Efford, MG, and Hunter, CM (2018). Spatial capture–mark–resight estimation of animal population density. Biometrics 74, 411–420.
| Spatial capture–mark–resight estimation of animal population density.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Fox J, Weisberg S (2019) ‘An R companion to applied regression.’ 3rd edn. (Sage: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA) Available at https://socialsciences.mcmaster.ca/jfox/Books/Companion/
Glen, AS, 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 |
Gregory, T, Carrasco Rueda, F, Deichmann, J, Kolowski, J, Alonso, A, and Fisher, D (2014). Arboreal camera trapping: taking a proven method to new heights. Methods in Ecology and Evolution 5, 443–451.
| Arboreal camera trapping: taking a proven method to new heights.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Henrich, M, Niederlechner, S, Kröschel, M, Thoma, S, Dormann, CF, Hartig, F, Heurich, M, Rowcliffe, M, and Wearn, O (2020). The influence of camera trap flash type on the behavioural reactions and trapping rates of red deer and roe deer. Remote Sensing in Ecology and Conservation 6, 399–410.
| The influence of camera trap flash type on the behavioural reactions and trapping rates of red deer and roe deer.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Herrera, DJ, Moore, SM, Herrmann, V, McShea, WJ, and Cove, MV (2021). A shot in the dark: white and infrared LED flash camera traps yield similar detection probabilities for common urban mammal species. Hystrix, the Italian Journal of Mammalogy 32, 72–75.
| A shot in the dark: white and infrared LED flash camera traps yield similar detection probabilities for common urban mammal species.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Karanth, KU (1995). Estimating tiger Panthera tigris populations from camera-trap data using capture–recpature models. Biological Conservation 71, 333–338.
| Estimating tiger Panthera tigris populations from camera-trap data using capture–recpature models.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Kelly, MJ (2008). Design, evaluate, refine: camera trap studies for elusive species. Animal Conservation 11, 182–184.
| Design, evaluate, refine: camera trap studies for elusive species.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Kelly, MJ, Noss, AJ, Di Bitetti, MS, Maffei, L, Arispe, RL, Paviolo, A, De Angelo, CD, and Di Blanco, YE (2008). Estimating Puma densities from camera trpping across three study sites: Bolivia, Argentina and Belize. Journal of Mammalogy 89, 408–418.
| Estimating Puma densities from camera trpping across three study sites: Bolivia, Argentina and Belize.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Kowalski M (2013) ExifPro photo browser. (version 2.1). Available at http://www.exifpro.com
Ladd R (2022) ‘Deer, Dogs, Demographics and Detection: Conservation Management of Eld’s Deer (Rucervus eldii) in Cambodia.’ (PhD Thesis, School of Agriculture and Food Science, The University of Queensland)
Ladd, R, Crouthers, R, Brook, S, and Eames, JC (2022). Reviewing the status and demise of the endangered Eld’s deer and identifying priority sites and conservation actions in Cambodia. Mammalia , .
| Reviewing the status and demise of the endangered Eld’s deer and identifying priority sites and conservation actions in Cambodia.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Larrucea, ES, Brussard, PF, Jaeger, MM, and Barrett, RH (2007). Cameras, coyotes, and the assumption of equal detectability. Journal of Wildlife Management 71, 1682–1689.
| Cameras, coyotes, and the assumption of equal detectability.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Martin P, Bateson P (2007) ‘Measuring behaviour: an introductory guide.’ (Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK)
Meek, PD, and Pittet, A (2012). User-based design specifications for the ultimate camera trap for wildlife research. Wildlife Research 39, 649–660.
| User-based design specifications for the ultimate camera trap for wildlife research.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Meek, PD, Ballard, G-A, Fleming, PJS, 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 |
Meek, P, Ballard, G, Fleming, P, and Falzon, G (2016). Are we getting the full picture? Animal responses to camera traps and implications for predator studies. Ecology and Evolution 6, 3216–3225.
| Are we getting the full picture? Animal responses to camera traps and implications for predator studies.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 |
Newbold, HG, and King, CM (2009). Can a predator see ‘invisible’ light? Infrared vision in ferrets (Mustela furo). Wildlife Research 36, 309–318.
| Can a predator see ‘invisible’ light? Infrared vision in ferrets (Mustela furo).Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Ramsey, DSL, Caley, PA, and Robley, A (2015). Estimating population density from presence-absence data using a spatially explicit model. The Journal of Wildlife Management 79, 491–499.
| Estimating population density from presence-absence data using a spatially explicit model.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
R Core Team (2021) ‘R: A language and envrionment for statistical computing.’ (R Foundation for Statistical Computing: Vienna, Austria) Available at https://www.R-project.org/
Rowcliffe, JM, Field, J, Turvey, ST, and Carbone, C (2008). Estimating animal density using camera traps without the need for individual recognition. Journal of Applied Ecology 45, 1228–1236.
| Estimating animal density using camera traps without the need for individual recognition.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Royle, JA, Nichols, JD, Karanth, KU, and Gopalaswamy, AM (2009). A hierarchical model for estimating density in camera-trap studies. Journal of Applied Ecology 46, 118–127.
| A hierarchical model for estimating density in camera-trap studies.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Schipper, J (2007). Camera-trap avoidance by Kinkajous Potos flavous: rethinking the ‘non-invasive’ paradigm. Small Carnivore Conservation 36, 38–41.
Séquin, ES, Jaeger, MM, Brussard, PF, and Barrett, RH (2003). Wariness of coyotes to camera traps relative to social status and territory boundaries. Canadian Journal of Zoology 81, 2015–2025.
| Wariness of coyotes to camera traps relative to social status and territory boundaries.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Taggart, PL, Peacock, DE, and Fancourt, BA (2020). Camera trap flash-type does not influence the behaviour of feral cats (Felis catus). Australian Mammalogy 42, 220–222.
| Camera trap flash-type does not influence the behaviour of feral cats (Felis catus).Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Wegge, P, Pokheral, CP, and Jnawali, SR (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 |
