CSIRO Publishing blank image blank image blank image blank imageBooksblank image blank image blank image blank imageJournalsblank image blank image blank image blank imageAbout Usblank image blank image blank image blank imageShopping Cartblank image blank image blank image You are here: Journals > Wildlife Research   
Wildlife Research
Journal Banner
  Ecology, management and conservation in natural and modified habitats
blank image Search
blank image blank image
blank image
  Advanced Search

Journal Home
About the Journal
Editorial Structure
Current Issue
Just Accepted
All Issues
Special Issues
Sample Issue
For Authors
General Information
Submit Article
Author Instructions
Open Access
For Referees
Referee Guidelines
Review an Article
Annual Referee Index
For Subscribers
Subscription Prices
Customer Service
Print Publication Dates
Library Recommendation

blue arrow e-Alerts
blank image
Subscribe to our Email Alert or RSS feeds for the latest journal papers.

red arrow Connect with us
blank image
facebook twitter logo LinkedIn


Article << Previous     |     Next >>   Contents Vol 37(6)

A comparison of the effectiveness of camera trapping and live trapping for sampling terrestrial small-mammal communities

Natasha De Bondi A, John G. White A C, Mike Stevens A B, Raylene Cooke A

A School of Life and Environmental Sciences, Deakin University, 221 Burwood Highway, Burwood, Vic. 3125, Australia.
B Grampians National Park, Parks Victoria, PO Box 18, Halls Gap, Vic. 3381, Australia.
C Corresponding author. Email: john.white@deakin.edu.au
PDF (895 KB) $25
 Export Citation


Context. There is an increasing reliance on the use of camera-trap technologies for surveys of medium to large terrestrial mammals. Camera trapping may, however, also have significant applications for broad-scale surveys of small mammals.

Aims. The present study aims to compare results from camera-trapping surveys to those of the more traditional live-trapping techniques. Specifically, it aims to test the effectiveness of the techniques for detecting species, and the cost effectiveness of both approaches.

Methods. Surveys were conducted across 36 sites in the Grampians National Park, Victoria, Australia, between April and July 2009. At each site, independent surveys were conducted for small mammals by using a combination of Elliot and cage trapping, then camera trapping. Results for the two different approaches were compared for both their ability to generate small-mammal presence data and their cost effectiveness.

Key results. Camera-trapping surveys of 36 sites in the Grampians National Park compared favourably with those of live-trapping surveys. Similar species were detected across the sites, and camera trapping was a considerably more cost effective than live trapping.

Conclusions. Camera-trapping surveys of small terrestrial mammals may provide a new and cost-effective technique for surveying terrestrial small mammals. This is particularly the case when presence data are the main requirement of the survey, with no requirement to capture and tag animals.

Implications. Given the cost-effective nature of camera trapping, there is potential to use this approach to increase the level of replication and spatial coverage of small-mammal surveys. Improving the replication and spatial coverage of studies has the potential to significantly increase the scope of research questions that can be asked, thus providing the potential to improve wildlife management.

Keywords: camera trapping, cost effectiveness, small mammal, survey methods, trapping.

Subscriber Login

Legal & Privacy | Contact Us | Help


© CSIRO 1996-2016