No abstract

No abstract

Camera trapping is a relatively new addition to the wildlife survey repertoire in Australia. Its rapid adoption has been unparalleled in ecological science, but objective evaluation of camera traps and their application has not kept pace. With the aim of motivating practitioners to think more about selection and deployment of camera trap models in relation to research goals, we reviewed Australian camera trapping studies to determine how camera traps have been used and how their technological constraints may have affected reported results and conclusions. In the 54 camera trapping articles published between 1991 and 2013, mammals (86%) were studied more than birds (10%) and reptiles (3%), with small to medium-sized mammals being most studied. Australian camera trapping studies, like those elsewhere, have changed from more qualitative to more complex quantitative investigations. However, we found that camera trap constraints and limitations were rarely acknowledged, and we identified eight key issues requiring consideration and further research. These are: camera model, camera detection system, camera placement and orientation, triggering and recovery, camera trap settings, temperature differentials, species identification and behavioural responses of the animals to the cameras. In particular, alterations to animal behaviour by camera traps potentially have enormous influence on data quality, reliability and interpretation. The key issues were not considered in most Australian camera trap papers and require further study to better understand the factors that influence the analysis and interpretation of camera trap data and improve experimental design.

Camera traps are electrical instruments that emit sounds and light. In recent decades they have become a tool of choice in wildlife research and monitoring. The variability between camera trap models and the methods used are considerable, and little is known about how animals respond to camera trap emissions. It has been reported that some animals show a response to camera traps, and in research this is often undesirable so it is important to understand why the animals are disturbed. We conducted laboratory based investigations to test the audio and infrared optical outputs of 12 camera trap models. Camera traps were measured for audio outputs in an anechoic chamber; we also measured ultrasonic (n = 5) and infrared illumination outputs (n = 7) of a subset of the camera trap models. We then compared the perceptive hearing range (n = 21) and assessed the vision ranges (n = 3) of mammals species (where data existed) to determine if animals can see and hear camera traps. We report that camera traps produce sounds that are well within the perceptive range of most mammals’ hearing and produce illumination that can be seen by many species.

Global Positioning System (GPS) wildlife telemetry collars are being used increasingly to understand the movement patterns of wild mammals. However, there are few published studies on which to gauge their general utility and success. This paper highlights issues faced by some of the first researchers to use GPS technology for terrestrial mammal tracking in Australia. Our collated data cover 24 studies where GPS collars were used in 280 deployments on 13 species, including dingoes or other wild dogs (Canis lupus dingo and hybrids), cats (Felis catus), foxes (Vulpes vulpes), kangaroos (Macropus giganteus), koalas (Phascolarctos cinereus), livestock guardian dogs (C. l. familiaris), pademelons (Thylogale billardierii), possums (Trichosurus cunninghami), quolls (Dasyurus geoffroii and D. maculatus), wallabies (Macropus rufogriseus and Petrogale lateralis), and wombats (Vombatus ursinus). Common problems encountered were associated with collar design, the GPS, VHF and timed-release components, and unforseen costs in retrieving and refurbishing collars. We discuss the implications of collar failures for research programs and animal welfare, and suggest how these could be avoided or improved. Our intention is to provide constructive advice so that researchers and manufacturers can make informed decisions about using this technology, and maximise the many benefits of GPS while reducing the risks.

Compassionate conservation focuses on 4 tenets: first, do no harm; individuals matter; inclusivity of individual animals; and peaceful coexistence between humans and animals. Recently, compassionate conservation has been promoted as an alternative to conventional conservation philosophy. We believe examples presented by compassionate conservationists are deliberately or arbitrarily chosen to focus on mammals; inherently not compassionate; and offer ineffective conservation solutions. Compassionate conservation arbitrarily focuses on charismatic species, notably large predators and megaherbivores. The philosophy is not compassionate when it leaves invasive predators in the environment to cause harm to vastly more individuals of native species or uses the fear of harm by apex predators to terrorize mesopredators. Hindering the control of exotic species (megafauna, predators) in situ will not improve the conservation condition of the majority of biodiversity. The positions taken by so‐called compassionate conservationists on particular species and on conservation actions could be extended to hinder other forms of conservation, including translocations, conservation fencing, and fertility control. Animal welfare is incredibly important to conservation, but ironically compassionate conservation does not offer the best welfare outcomes to animals and is often ineffective in achieving conservation goals. Consequently, compassionate conservation may threaten public and governmental support for conservation because of the limited understanding of conservation problems by the general public.

No abstract

Camera trapping is widely used in ecological studies. It is often considered nonintrusive simply because animals are not captured or handled. However, the emission of light and sound from camera traps can be intrusive. We evaluated the daytime and nighttime behavioral responses of four mammalian predators to camera traps in road‐based, passive (no bait) surveys, in order to determine how this might affect ecological investigations. Wild dogs, European red foxes, feral cats, and spotted‐tailed quolls all exhibited behaviors indicating they noticed camera traps. Their recognition of camera traps was more likely when animals were approaching the device than if they were walking away from it. Some individuals of each species retreated from camera traps and some moved toward them, with negative behaviors slightly more common during the daytime. There was no consistent response to camera traps within species; both attraction and repulsion were observed. Camera trapping is clearly an intrusive sampling method for some individuals of some species. This may limit the utility of conclusions about animal behavior obtained from camera trapping. Similarly, it is possible that behavioral responses to camera traps could affect detection probabilities, introducing as yet unmeasured biases into camera trapping abundance surveys. These effects demand consideration when utilizing camera traps in ecological research and will ideally prompt further work to quantify associated biases in detection probabilities.