Optimising camera trap deployment design across multiple sites for species inventory surveysJ. Smith A B E , S. Legge A C , A. James A and K. Tuft A D
A Australian Wildlife Conservancy, Mornington Sanctuary, PMB 925, Derby, WA 6728, Australia.
B Research Institute for the Environment and Livelihoods, Charles Darwin University, Darwin, NT 0909, Australia.
C National Environmental Science Program Threatened Species Recovery Hub, Centre for Biodiversity Conservation, University of Queensland, St Lucia, Qld 4072, Australia.
D Arid Recovery, PO Box 147, Roxby Downs, SA 5725, Australia.
E Corresponding author. Email: firstname.lastname@example.org
Pacific Conservation Biology 23(1) 43-51 https://doi.org/10.1071/PC16017
Submitted: 26 April 2016 Accepted: 31 July 2016 Published: 19 September 2016
Camera traps are being increasingly used in biological surveys. One of the most common uses of camera trap data is the generation of species inventories and estimations of species richness. Many authors have advocated for increased camera trap-nights (long deployment times or more cameras in an array) to detect rare or wide-ranging species. However, in practice, the number of traps and the duration of surveys are constrained; a survey leader must make decisions about allocating the available cameras to sites. Here we investigate the effect of deployment time, camera array size and number of sites on detection of saxicoline mammal and varanid species obtained from surveys of discrete vegetation pockets in tropical Australia. This paper provides an analysis method for optimising decisions about how a limited number of cameras should be deployed across sites. We found that increasing the number of sites leads to larger species richness estimates in a shorter period. Increasing the number of cameras per site also leads to higher species richness estimates in a shorter time, but not to the same extent as increasing the number of sites. With fewer sites used or smaller arrays deployed at each site, a longer deployment duration is required, especially for rarer or wider-ranging species, or those not attracted to bait. Finally, we compared estimates of species richness generated by our camera trapping to those generated by live trapping at a subset of our sites, and found camera traps generated much larger estimates.
Additional keywords: bootstrap, camera traps, inventory, species accumulation curves, species richness estimators
ReferencesAzlan, J. M., and Sharma, D. S. K. (2006). The diversity and activity patterns of wild felids in a secondary forest in peninsular Malaysia. Oryx 40, 36–41.
| The diversity and activity patterns of wild felids in a secondary forest in peninsular Malaysia.CrossRef |
Brown, K. P., Moller, H., Innes, J., and Jansen, P. (1998). Identifying predators at nests of small birds in a New Zealand forest. The Ibis 140, 274–279.
| Identifying predators at nests of small birds in a New Zealand forest.CrossRef |
Colwell, R. K., Mao, C. X., and Chang, J. (2004). Interpolating, extrapolating, and comparing incidence-based species accumulation curves. Ecology 85, 2717–2727.
| Interpolating, extrapolating, and comparing incidence-based species accumulation curves.CrossRef |
Cove, M. V., Spinola, R. M., Jackson, V. L., Sáenz, J. C., and Chassot, O. (2013). Integrating occupancy modeling and camera-trap data to estimate medium and large mammal detection and richness in a Central American biological corridor. Tropical Conservation Science 6, 781–795.
Foster, J., and Harmsen, B. J. (2012). A critique of density estimation from camera-trap data. Journal of Wildlife Management 76, 224–236.
| A critique of density estimation from camera-trap data.CrossRef |
Galvis, N., Link, A., and Di Fiore, A. D. (2014). A novel use of camera traps to study demography and life history in wild animals: a case study of spider monkeys (Ateles belzebuth). International Journal of Primatology 35, 908–918.
| A novel use of camera traps to study demography and life history in wild animals: a case study of spider monkeys (Ateles belzebuth).CrossRef |
Glen, A. S., Cockburn, S., Nichols, M., Ekanayake, J., and Warburton, B. (2013). Optimising camera traps for monitoring small mammals. PLoS One 8, e67940.
| Optimising camera traps for monitoring small mammals.CrossRef | 1:CAS:528:DC%2BC3sXhtFaku7bN&md5=f097b5f5ab4a3ab7dc81d4cbd6a4766eCAS | 23840790PubMed |
Gómez, H., Wallace, R. B., Ayala, G., and Tejada, R. (2005). Dry season activity periods of some Amazonian mammals. Studies on Neotropical Fauna and Environment 40, 91–95.
| Dry season activity periods of some Amazonian mammals.CrossRef |
Gotelli, N. J., and Colwell, R. K. (2001). Quantifying biodiversity: procedures and pitfalls in the measurement and comparison of species richness. Ecology Letters 4, 379–391.
| Quantifying biodiversity: procedures and pitfalls in the measurement and comparison of species richness.CrossRef |
Hamel, S., Killengreen, S. T., Henden, J., Eide, N. E., Roed-Erikson, L., Ims, R. A., and Yoccoz, N. G. (2013). Towards good practice guidance in using camera-traps in ecology: influence of sampling design on validity of ecological inferences. Methods in Ecology and Evolution 4, 105–113.
| Towards good practice guidance in using camera-traps in ecology: influence of sampling design on validity of ecological inferences.CrossRef |
Jenks, K. E., Chanteap, P., Damrongchainarong, K., Cutter, P., Cutter, P., Redford, T., Lynam, A. J., Howard, J., and Leimgruber, P. (2011). Using relative abundance indices from camera-trapping to test wildlife conservation hypotheses – an example from Khao Yai National Park, Thailand. Tropical Conservation Science 4, 113–131.
Karanth, K. U., and Nichols, J. D. (1998). Estimation of tiger densities in India using photographic captures and recaptures. Ecology 79, 2852–2862.
| Estimation of tiger densities in India using photographic captures and recaptures.CrossRef |
Kerle, J. A., and Burgman, M. A. (1984). Some aspects of the ecology of the mammal fauna of the Jabiluka area, Northern Territory. Australian Wildlife Research 11, 207–222.
| Some aspects of the ecology of the mammal fauna of the Jabiluka area, Northern Territory.CrossRef |
Kindt, R., Van Damme, P., and Simons, A.J. (2006). Patterns of species richness at varying scales in western Kenya: planning for agroecosystem diversification. Biodiversity and Conservation 15, 3235–3249.
| Patterns of species richness at varying scales in western Kenya: planning for agroecosystem diversification.CrossRef |
Meek, P. D., Falzon, G., and Vernes, K. (2013). On the reliability of expert identification of small–medium sized mammals from camera trap photos. Wildlife Biology in Practice 9, 1–19.
| On the reliability of expert identification of small–medium sized mammals from camera trap photos.CrossRef |
Meek, P. D., Ballard, G., Claridge, A., Kays, R., Moseby, K., O’Brien, T., O’Connell, A., Sanderson, J., Swann, D. E., Tobler, M., and Townsend, S. (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 |
Oksanen, J., Guillaume Blanchet, F., Kindt, R., Legendre, P., Minchin, P. R., O’Hara, R. B., Simpson, G. L., Solymos, P., Henry, M., Stevens, H., and Wagner, H. (2012). vegan: community ecology package. R package version 2.0–5. Available at: http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=vegan
R Core Team (2012). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. Available at: http://www.R-project.org/
Read, J. L., and Moseby, K. E. (2001). Factors affecting pitfall capture rates of small ground invertebrates in arid South Australia. I. The influence of weather and moon phase on capture rates of reptiles. Wildlife Research 28, 53–60.
| Factors affecting pitfall capture rates of small ground invertebrates in arid South Australia. I. The influence of weather and moon phase on capture rates of reptiles.CrossRef |
Rovero, F., and Marshall, A. R. (2009). Camera trapping photographic rate as an index of density in forest ungulates. Journal of Applied Ecology 46, 1011–1017.
| Camera trapping photographic rate as an index of density in forest ungulates.CrossRef |
Rovero, F., Zimmernmann, 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.
Rowcliffe, J. M., Field, J., Turvey, S. T., and Carbone, C. (2008). Estimating animal density using camera traps without the need for individual recognition. Journal of Applied Ecology 45, 1228–1236.
| Estimating animal density using camera traps without the need for individual recognition.CrossRef |
Seufert, V., Linden, B., and Fischer, F. (2010). Revealing secondary seed removers: results from camera trapping. African Journal of Ecology 48, 914–922.
| Revealing secondary seed removers: results from camera trapping.CrossRef |
Smith, J. G. (2003). Fish and company smell after three days: increasing capture rates of varanid lizards. Herpetological Review 35, 41–43.
Smith, J. K., and Coulson, G. (2012). A comparison of vertical and horizontal camera trap orientations for detection of potoroos and bandicoots. Australian Mammalogy 34, 196–201.
| A comparison of vertical and horizontal camera trap orientations for detection of potoroos and bandicoots.CrossRef |
Swann, D., and Perkins, E. (2012). Inventory of terrestrial mammals in the Rincon mountains using camera traps. In ‘Merging Science and Management in a Rapidly Changing World: Biodiversity and Management of the Madrean Archipelago III; 2012 May 1–5, Tucson, AZ. Proceedings’. (Eds G. J. Gottfried, P. F. Ffolliott, B. S. Gebow, L. G. Eskew, and L. C. Collins.) pp. 269–276. (US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station: Fort Collins, CO.)
Thompson, S. A., Thompson, G. G., and Withers, P. C. (2005). Capture rates of small vertebrates decrease as the pit-trapping effort increases at Ora Banda. Journal of the Royal Society of Western Australia 88, 37–39.
Tobler, M. W., Carrillo-Percastegui, S. E., Leite Pitman, R., 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 |
Trolle, M., and Kéry, M. (2003). Estimation of ocelot density in the Pantanal using capture–recapture analysis of camera-trapping data. Journal of Mammalogy 84, 607–614.
| Estimation of ocelot density in the Pantanal using capture–recapture analysis of camera-trapping data.CrossRef |
Ugland, K. I., Gray, J. S., and Ellingson, K. E. (2003). The species-accumulation curve and estimation of species richness. Journal of Animal Ecology 72, 888–897.
| The species-accumulation curve and estimation of species richness.CrossRef |
van Schaik, C. P., and Griffiths, M. (1996). Activity periods of Indonesian rain forest mammals. Biotropica 28, 105–112.
| Activity periods of Indonesian rain forest mammals.CrossRef |
Welbourne, D. (2013). A method for surveying diurnal terrestrial reptiles with passive infrared automatically triggered cameras. Herpetological Review 44, 247–250.
Woinarski, J. C. Z. 2007. ‘Lost from our Landscape: Threatened Species of the Northern Territory.’ (Department of Natural Resources, Environment and the Arts: Palmerston, NT.)
Yasuda, M. (2004). Monitoring diversity and abundance of mammals with camera traps; a case study on Mount Sukuba, central Japan. Mammal Study 29, 37–46.
| Monitoring diversity and abundance of mammals with camera traps; a case study on Mount Sukuba, central Japan.CrossRef |