Animal detections increase by using a wide-angle camera trap model but not by periodically repositioning camera traps within study sites
Open Access
- 3 February 2021
- journal article
- research article
- Published by CSIRO Publishing in Pacific Conservation Biology
- Vol. 28 (1) , 25-35
Abstract
When using camera traps for wildlife studies, determining suitable camera models and deployment methods is essential for achieving study objectives. We aimed to determine if camera trap performance can be increased by (1) using cameras with wider detection angles, and (2) by periodically repositioning cameras within sites. We compared three camera trap groups: stationary Reconyx PC900/HC600 (40° detection angle), and paired, periodically-repositioned Reconyx PC900/HC600 and Swift 3C wide-angle camera traps (110° detection angle). Cameras operated simultaneously at 17 sites over 9 weeks within the Upper Warren region, Western Australia. Swift cameras had significantly higher detection rates, leading to better performance, especially for species 10 kg bodyweight. Reconyx cameras missed 54% of known events, with most being animals that moved within the cameras’ detection zones. Stationary and periodically-repositioned Reconyx camera traps performed similarly, although there were notable differences for some species. The better performance of Swift 3C wide-angle camera traps makes them more useful for community-level and species-level studies. The increased sensitivity of the Swift’s passive infrared sensor along with the wider detection zone played an important role in its success. When choosing camera trap models, detection angle and sensor sensitivity should be considered to produce reliable study results. Periodically repositioning cameras within sites is a technique that warrants further investigation as it may reduce camera placement bias, animal avoidance of camera traps, and increase spatial/habitat information when a limited number of cameras are deployed.Keywords
This publication has 32 references indexed in Scilit:
- REVIEW: Wildlife camera trapping: a review and recommendations for linking surveys to ecological processesJournal of Applied Ecology, 2015
- The history of wildlife camera trapping as a survey tool in AustraliaAustralian Mammalogy, 2015
- Detecting mammals in heterogeneous landscapes: implications for biodiversity monitoring and managementBiodiversity and Conservation, 2013
- Automated identification of animal species in camera trap imagesEURASIP Journal on Image and Video Processing, 2013
- Importance of getting the numbers right: quantifying the rapid and substantial decline of an abundant marsupial, Bettongia penicillataWildlife Research, 2013
- Quantifying the sensitivity of camera traps: an adapted distance sampling approachMethods in Ecology and Evolution, 2011
- Surveys using camera traps: are we looking to a brighter future?Animal Conservation, 2008
- Cameras, Coyotes, and the Assumption of Equal DetectabilityThe Journal of Wildlife Management, 2007
- Wariness of coyotes to camera traps relative to social status and territory boundariesCanadian Journal of Zoology, 2003
- Long-term trends in native mammal capture rates in a jarrah forest in south-western AustraliaAustralian Forestry, 2002