Determining the efficacy of camera traps, live capture traps, and detection dogs for locating cryptic small mammal species
Open Access
- 8 January 2020
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Wiley in Ecology and Evolution
- Vol. 10 (2) , 1054-1068
Abstract
Metal box (e.g., Elliott, Sherman) traps and remote cameras are two of the most commonly employed methods presently used to survey terrestrial mammals. However, their relative efficacy at accurately detecting cryptic small mammals has not been adequately assessed. The present study therefore compared the effectiveness of metal box (Elliott) traps and vertically oriented, close range, white flash camera traps in detecting small mammals occurring in the Scenic Rim of eastern Australia. We also conducted a preliminary survey to determine effectiveness of a conservation detection dog (CDD) for identifying presence of a threatened carnivorous marsupial, Antechinus arktos, in present‐day and historical locations, using camera traps to corroborate detections. 200 Elliott traps and 20 white flash camera traps were set for four deployments per method, across a site where the target small mammals, including A. arktos, are known to occur. Camera traps produced higher detection probabilities than Elliott traps for all four species. Thus, vertically mounted white flash cameras were preferable for detecting the presence of cryptic small mammals in our survey. The CDD, which had been trained to detect A. arktos scat, indicated in total 31 times when deployed in the field survey area, with subsequent camera trap deployments specifically corroborating A. arktos presence at 100% (3) indication locations. Importantly, the dog indicated twice within Border Ranges National Park, where historical (1980s–1990s) specimen‐based records indicate the species was present, but extensive Elliott and camera trapping over the last 5–10 years have resulted in zero A. arktos captures. Camera traps subsequently corroborated A. arktos presence at these sites. This demonstrates that detection dogs can be a highly effective means of locating threatened, cryptic species, especially when traditional methods are unable to detect low‐density mammal populations.Keywords
This publication has 52 references indexed in Scilit:
- Pairing field methods to improve inference in wildlife surveys while accommodating detection covarianceEcological Applications, 2017
- The detection and identification of tuatara and gecko scents by dogsJournal of Veterinary Behavior, 2015
- REVIEW: Wildlife camera trapping: a review and recommendations for linking surveys to ecological processesJournal of Applied Ecology, 2015
- Accuracy and efficiency of detection dogs: a powerful new tool for koala conservation and managementScientific Reports, 2015
- Poor historical data drive conservation complacency: The case of mammal decline in south-eastern Australian forestsAustral Ecology, 2014
- The Black-tailed Antechinus, Antechinus arktos sp. nov.: a new species of carnivorous marsupial from montane regions of the Tweed Volcano caldera, eastern AustraliaZootaxa, 2014
- Has the Earth’s sixth mass extinction already arrived?Nature, 2011
- A comparison of the effectiveness of camera trapping and live trapping for sampling terrestrial small-mammal communitiesWildlife Research, 2010
- A Preliminary Evaluation on the Use of Dogs to Recover Bat Fatalities at Wind Energy FacilitiesWildlife Society Bulletin, 2006
- An experimental manipulation of the intensity of interspecific competition: effects on a small marsupialOecologia, 1986