More haste, less speed: pilot study suggests camera trap detection zone could be more important than trigger speed to maximise species detectionsBronwyn A. Fancourt A D , Mark Sweaney B and Don B. Fletcher C
A Woodlands and Wetlands Trust, PO Box 58, Fyshwick, ACT 2609, Australia. Present address: Biosecurity Queensland, Department of Agriculture and Fisheries, PO Box 102, Toowoomba, Qld 4350, Australia.
B ACT Parks and Conservation Service, Environment, Planning and Sustainable Development Directorate, 66–68 Grimwade Street, Mitchell, ACT 2911, Australia.
C Conservation Research, Environment, Planning and Sustainable Development Directorate, PO Box 158, Canberra City, ACT 2601, Australia. Present address: 15 Wandoo Street, O’Connor, ACT 2602, Australia.
D Corresponding author. Email: Bronwyn.Fancourt@daf.qld.gov.au
Australian Mammalogy - https://doi.org/10.1071/AM17004
Submitted: 3 February 2017 Accepted: 30 March 2017 Published online: 30 May 2017
Camera traps are being used increasingly for wildlife management and research. When choosing camera models, practitioners often consider camera trigger speed to be one of the most important factors to maximise species detections. However, factors such as detection zone will also influence detection probability. As part of a rabbit eradication program, we performed a pilot study to compare rabbit (Oryctolagus cuniculus) detections using the Reconyx PC900 (faster trigger speed, narrower detection zone) and the Ltl Acorn Ltl-5310A (slower trigger speed, wider detection zone). Contrary to our predictions, the slower-trigger-speed cameras detected rabbits more than twice as often as the faster-trigger-speed cameras, suggesting that the wider detection zone more than compensated for the relatively slower trigger time. We recommend context-specific field trials to ensure cameras are appropriate for the required purpose. Missed detections could lead to incorrect inferences and potentially misdirected management actions.
Additional keywords: Ltl Acorn, Ltl-5310A, PC900, rabbit, Reconyx, trigger delay.
ReferencesFancourt, B. A. (2016). Avoiding the subject: the implications of avoidance behaviour for detecting predators. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 70, 1535–1546.
| Avoiding the subject: the implications of avoidance behaviour for detecting predators.CrossRef |
MacKenzie, D. I., Nichols, J. D., Lachman, G. B., Droege, S., Royle, A. J., and Langtimm, C. A. (2002). Estimating site occupancy rates when detection probabilities are less than one. Ecology 83, 2248–2255.
| Estimating site occupancy rates when detection probabilities are less than one.CrossRef |
Meek, P., 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 |
Meek, P. D., Ballard, G.-A., Fleming, P. J. S., 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 |
Meek, P. D., Ballard, G.-A., Vernes, K., and Fleming, P. J. S. (2015). The history of wildlife camera trapping as a survey tool in Australia. Australian Mammalogy 37, 1–12.
| The history of wildlife camera trapping as a survey tool in Australia.CrossRef |
Meek, P. D., Ballard, G. A., and Falzon, G. (2016). The higher you go the less you will know: placing camera traps high to avoid theft will affect detection. Remote Sensing in Ecology and Conservation 2, 204–211.
| The higher you go the less you will know: placing camera traps high to avoid theft will affect detection.CrossRef |
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, the Italian Journal of Mammalogy 24, 148–156.