Optimising deployment time of remote cameras to estimate abundance of female bighorn sheep
Jace C. Taylor A , Steven B. Bates B , Jericho C. Whiting
C D , Brock R. McMillan A and Randy T. Larsen A
+ Author Affiliations
- Author Affiliations
A Department of Plant and Wildlife Sciences, 4105 Life Sciences Building, Brigham Young University, Provo, UT 84602, USA.
B Utah Division of Parks and Recreation, Antelope Island State Park, 4528 W. 1700 S., Syracuse, UT 84075, USA.
C Department of Biology, Brigham Young University-Idaho, 116 Benson, Rexburg, ID 83460, USA.
D Corresponding author. Email: whitingj@byui.edu
Wildlife Research 48(2) 127-133 https://doi.org/10.1071/WR20069
Submitted: 28 April 2020 Accepted: 14 July 2020 Published: 28 September 2020
Abstract
Context: Wildlife biologists accumulate large quantities of images from remote cameras, which can be time- and cost-prohibitive to archive and analyse. Remote-camera projects would benefit from not setting cameras longer than needed and not analysing more images than needed; however, there is a lack of information about optimal deployment time required for remote-camera surveys to estimate ungulate abundance.
Aims: The objective was to estimate abundance of adult females in a population of Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis canadensis) in Utah, USA, from 2012 to 2014, and determine whether this type of study can be conducted more efficiently. Because females are the most important cohort for population growth, remote cameras were set at three water sources and mark–resight models in Program MARK were used.
Methods: We compared estimated abundance of collared and uncollared females by number of days cameras were set using 31 replicated abundance estimates from each year starting 1 July. Each replicated estimate used a different number of days and photographs from a 62-day sampling period (1 July to 31 August).
Key results: Abundance estimates ranged from 44 to 98 animals. Precise estimates of abundance, however, were obtained with only 12 days of sampling in each year. By analysing only 12 days of images rather than 62 days in all years, the estimated mean of 58 adult females would have changed by only 7 individuals (±4 individuals, range = 3–10 animals), the s.e. would have increased by a mean of only 4 individuals (±1.6, range = 2.0–5.2 individuals) and a mean of only 18% (±10.5%, range = 8–29%) of images would have been analysed. Across the study, analysis of >23 000 (>80%) images could have been avoided, saving time and money.
Conclusions: The results indicate that an asymptotic relationship exists between estimated abundance of female bighorn sheep and remote-camera deployment time.
Implications: The mark–resight methods used in the present study would work for other ungulates in which individuals are radio collared or marked using remote cameras set at water sources, trail crossings or mineral licks. These findings can help researchers reduce cost of setting, servicing, archiving and analysing photographs from remote cameras for ungulate population monitoring.
Additional keywords: camera traps, motion-sensor cameras, Ovis canadensis, population monitoring, water sources.
References
Bleich, V. C., Wehausen, J. D., and Holl, S. A. (1990). Desert-dwelling mountain sheep: conservation implications of a naturally fragmented distribution. Conservation Biology 4, 383–390.| Desert-dwelling mountain sheep: conservation implications of a naturally fragmented distribution.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Bleich, V. C., Wehausen, J. D., Ramey, R. R., and Rechel, J. L. (1996). Metapopulation theory and mountain sheep: implications for conservation. In ‘Metapopulations and Wildlife Conservation’. (Ed. D. R. McCullough.) pp. 353–373. (Island Press: Washington, DC, USA.)
Bowyer, R. T., Bleich, V. C., Stewart, K. M., Whiting, J. C., and Monteith, K. L. (2014). Density dependence in ungulates: a review of causes, and concepts with some clarifications. California Fish and Game 100, 550–572.
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 |
Campbell, B. H., and Remington, R. (1979). Bighorn use of artificial water sources in the Buckskin Mountains, Arizona. Desert Bighorn Council Transactions 23, 50–56.
Crunchant, A. S., Egerer, M., Loos, A., Burghardt, T., Zuberbühler, K., Corogenes, K., Leinert, V., Kulik, L., and Kühl, H. S. (2017). Automated face detection for occurrence and occupancy estimation in chimpanzees. American Journal of Primatology 79, e22627.
| Automated face detection for occurrence and occupancy estimation in chimpanzees.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 28095593PubMed |
Cutler, T. L., and Swann, D. E. (1999). Using remote photography in wildlife ecology: a review. Wildlife Society Bulletin 27, 571–581.
Ellis, K. S., Larsen, R. T., Whiting, J. C., Wilson, T. L., and McMillan, B. R. (2017). Assessing indirect measures of abundance and distribution with remote cameras: simplifying indices of activity at pygmy rabbit burrows. Ecological Indicators 77, 23–30.
| Assessing indirect measures of abundance and distribution with remote cameras: simplifying indices of activity at pygmy rabbit burrows.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Epps, C. W., Palsboll, P. J., Wehausen, J. D., Roderick, G. K., Ramey, R. R., and McCullough, D. R. (2005). Highways block gene flow and cause a rapid decline in genetic diversity of desert bighorn sheep. Ecology Letters 8, 1029–1038.
| Highways block gene flow and cause a rapid decline in genetic diversity of desert bighorn sheep.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Fairbanks, W. S., and Tullous, R. (2002). Distribution of pronghorn (Antilocapra americana Ord) on Antelope Island State Park, Utah, USA, before and after establishment of recreational trails. Natural Areas Journal 22, 277–282.
Fegraus, E. H., Lin, K., Ahumada, J. A., Baru, C., Chandra, S., and Youn, C. (2011). Data acquisition and management software for camera trap data: a case study from the TEAM Network. Ecological Informatics 6, 345–353.
| Data acquisition and management software for camera trap data: a case study from the TEAM Network.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Hall, L. K., Day, C. C., Westover, M. D., Edgel, R. J., Larsen, R. T., Knight, R. N., and McMillan, B. R. (2013). Vigilance of kit foxes at water sources: a test of competing hypotheses for a solitary carnivore subject to predation. Behavioural Processes 94, 76–82.
| Vigilance of kit foxes at water sources: a test of competing hypotheses for a solitary carnivore subject to predation.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 23305800PubMed |
Harris, G., Thompson, R., Childs, J. L., and Sanderson, J. G. (2010). Automatic storage and analysis of camera trap data. Bulletin of the Ecological Society of America 91, 352–360.
| Automatic storage and analysis of camera trap data.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Head, J. S., Boesch, C., Robbins, M. M., Rabanal, L. I., Makaga, L., and Kühl, H. S. (2013). Effective sociodemographic population assessment of elusive species in ecology and conservation management. Ecology and Evolution 3, 2903–2916.
| Effective sociodemographic population assessment of elusive species in ecology and conservation management.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 24101982PubMed |
Johnson, H. E., Scott Mills, L., Wehausen, J. D., and Stephenson, T. R. (2010). Combining ground count, telemetry, and mark–resight data to infer population dynamics in an endangered species. Journal of Applied Ecology 47, 1083–1093.
| Combining ground count, telemetry, and mark–resight data to infer population dynamics in an endangered species.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Kaze, J., Whiting, J. C., Freeman, E. D., Bates, S. B., and Larsen, R. T. (2016). Birth-site selection and timing of births in American bison: effects of habitat and proximity to anthropogenic features. Wildlife Research 43, 418–428.
| Birth-site selection and timing of births in American bison: effects of habitat and proximity to anthropogenic features.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
McClintock, B. (2019). Mark–resight models. In ‘Program Mark: a Gentle Introduction’. (Eds E. G. Cooch and G. C. White.) pp. 763–805. Available at http://www.phidot.org/software/mark/docs/book/ [verified 17 August 2020].
Meek, P., Ballard, G., Claridge, A., Kays, R., Moseby, K., O’brien, T., O’connell, A., Sanderson, J., Swann, D., and Tobler, M. (2014). Recommended guiding principles for reporting on camera trapping research. Biodiversity and Conservation 23, 2321–2343.
| Recommended guiding principles for reporting on camera trapping research.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Meek, P. D., Ballard, G.-A., and Fleming, P. J. (2015). 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 |
O’Connell, A. F., Nichols, J. D., and Karanth, K. U. (2010) ‘Camera Traps in Animal Ecology: Methods and Analyses.’ (Springer: New York, NY, USA.)
Olson, D. D., Shannon, J. M., Whiting, J. C., and Flinders, J. T. (2008). History, status, and population structure of California bighorn sheep in Utah. Proceedings of the Northern Wild Sheep and Goat Council 16, 161–177.
Palmer, M. S., Swanson, A., Kosmala, M., Arnold, T., and Packer, C. (2018). Evaluating relative abundance indices for terrestrial herbivores from large‐scale camera trap surveys. African Journal of Ecology 56, 791–803.
| Evaluating relative abundance indices for terrestrial herbivores from large‐scale camera trap surveys.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Perry, T. W., Newman, T., and Thibault, K. M. (2010). Evaluation of methods to estimate size of a population of desert bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis mexicana) in New Mexico. The Southwestern Naturalist 55, 517–524.
| Evaluation of methods to estimate size of a population of desert bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis mexicana) in New Mexico.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Robinson, R. W., Smith, T. S., Whiting, J. C., Larsen, R. T., and Shannon, J. M. (2020). Determining timing of births and habitat selection to identify lambing period habitat for bighorn sheep. Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution 8, .
| Determining timing of births and habitat selection to identify lambing period habitat for bighorn sheep.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Rogerson, J. D., Fairbanks, W. S., and Cornicelli, L. (2008). Ecology of gastropod and bighorn sheep hosts of lungworm on isolated, semiarid mountain ranges in Utah, USA. Journal of Wildlife Diseases 44, 28–44.
| Ecology of gastropod and bighorn sheep hosts of lungworm on isolated, semiarid mountain ranges in Utah, USA.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 18263819PubMed |
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, .
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 |
Royle, J. A., Nichols, J. D., Karanth, K. U., and Gopalaswamy, A. M. (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 |
Sanderson, J. G., and Trolle, M. (2005). Monitoring elusive mammals: unattended cameras reveal secrets of some of the world’s wildest places. American Scientist 93, 148–155.
| Monitoring elusive mammals: unattended cameras reveal secrets of some of the world’s wildest places.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Sheil, D., Mugerwa, B., and Fegraus, E. H. (2013). African golden cats, citizen science, and serendipity: tapping the camera trap revolution. South African Journal of Wildlife Research 43, 74–78.
| African golden cats, citizen science, and serendipity: tapping the camera trap revolution.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Shields, A. V., Larsen, R. T., and Whiting, J. C. (2012). Summer watering patterns of mule deer in the Great Basin Desert, USA: implications of differential use by individuals and the sexes for management of water resources. The Scientific World Journal , .
| Summer watering patterns of mule deer in the Great Basin Desert, USA: implications of differential use by individuals and the sexes for management of water resources.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 23125557PubMed |
Sikes, R. S., the Animal Care and Use Committee of the American Society of Mammalogists (2016). 2016 Guidelines of the American Society of Mammalogists for the use of wild mammals in research and education. Journal of Mammalogy 97, 663–688.
| 2016 Guidelines of the American Society of Mammalogists for the use of wild mammals in research and education.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 29692469PubMed |
Stevens, D. R., and Goodson, N. J. (1993). Assessing effects of removals for transplanting on a high-elevation bighorn sheep population. Conservation Biology 7, 908–915.
| Assessing effects of removals for transplanting on a high-elevation bighorn sheep population.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Tabak, M. A., Norouzzadeh, M. S., Wolfson, D. W., Sweeney, S. J., VerCauteren, K. C., Snow, N. P., Halseth, J. M., Di Salvo, P. A., Lewis, J. S., and White, M. D. (2019). Machine learning to classify animal species in camera trap images: applications in ecology. Methods in Ecology and Evolution 10, 585–590.
| Machine learning to classify animal species in camera trap images: applications in ecology.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Tarugara, A., Clegg, B. W., Gandiwa, E., and Muposhi, V. K. (2019). Cost-benefit analysis of increasing sampling effort in a baited-camera trap survey of an African leopard (Panthera pardus) population. Global Ecology and Conservation 18, e00627.
| Cost-benefit analysis of increasing sampling effort in a baited-camera trap survey of an African leopard (Panthera pardus) population.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Tobler, M. W., Carrillo‐Percastegui, S. E., Pitman, R. L., 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 |
Wearn, O. R., and Glover-Kapfer, P. (2019). Snap happy: camera traps are an effective sampling tool when compared with alternative methods. Royal Society Open Science 6, 181748.
| Snap happy: camera traps are an effective sampling tool when compared with alternative methods.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 31032031PubMed |
White, G. C., and Burnham, K. P. (1999). Program MARK: survival estimation from populations of marked animals. Bird Study 46, S120–S139.
| Program MARK: survival estimation from populations of marked animals.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Whiting, J. C., Bowyer, R. T., and Flinders, J. T. (2009a). Annual use of water sources by reintroduced Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep Ovis canadensis canadensis: effects of season and drought. Acta Theriologica 54, 127–136.
| Annual use of water sources by reintroduced Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep Ovis canadensis canadensis: effects of season and drought.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Whiting, J. C., Bowyer, R. T., and Flinders, J. T. (2009b). Diel use of water by reintroduced bighorn sheep. Western North American Naturalist 69, 407–412.
| Diel use of water by reintroduced bighorn sheep.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Whiting, J. C., Bowyer, R. T., Flinders, J. T., Bleich, V. C., and Kie, J. G. (2010). Sexual segregation and use of water by bighorn sheep: implications for conservation. Animal Conservation 13, 541–548.
| Sexual segregation and use of water by bighorn sheep: implications for conservation.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Willi, M., Pitman, R. T., Cardoso, A. W., Locke, C., Swanson, A., Boyer, A., Veldthuis, M., and Fortson, L. (2019). Identifying animal species in camera trap images using deep learning and citizen science. Methods in Ecology and Evolution 10, 80–91.
| Identifying animal species in camera trap images using deep learning and citizen science.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Yu, X., Wang, J., Kays, R., Jansen, P. A., Wang, T., and Huang, T. (2013). Automated identification of animal species in camera trap images. EURASIP Journal on Image and Video Processing 2013, 52.
| Automated identification of animal species in camera trap images.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
