A frontier in the use of camera traps: surveying terrestrial squamate assemblages

Welbourne, Dustin J.; Paull, David; Claridge, Andrew W.; Ford, Frederic

doi:10.1002/rse2.57

Cited by 22 publications

(24 citation statements)

References 88 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, for small animals, the size of the emitter and battery limits the use of radio-tracking [15], making it impossible to record successive positions within the tunnel during the crossing. Camera traps are widely use to monitor tunnels use (reviewed in [17] and [18]), and the increasing quality of the recorded pictures/videos and automatic detection devices allow their use for small ectothermic organisms [19][20][21]. Moreover, the precise trajectory of amphibian during short-term movements can be recording thanks to fluorescent pigments [22,23].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Automatic detection of small PIT-tagged animals using wildlife crossings

Testud

Vergnes

Cordier³

et al. 2019

Anim Biotelemetry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Mitigating the effect of linear transport infrastructure (LTI) on fauna is a crucial issue in road ecology. Wildlife crossing structures (tunnels or overpasses) are one solution that has been implemented to restore habitat connectivity and reduce wildlife mortality. Evaluating how these crossings function for small wildlife has often been recommended but, mainly due to technical limitations, is not often conducted in practice or only as short-term monitoring (less than 1 year). In this study, we developed and tested an automated device that records the detailed behaviour of animals when using wildlife tunnels. The method is based on marking and detecting individuals with RFID (radio-frequency identification) tags and allows small animals to be tracked. Composed of four antennas (detectors) placed at roughly 2 m intervals, the system was tested in a tunnel in northern France in the summer of 2017. One species of amphibian (the toad Bufo spinosus, n = 13) and two carabids (the ground beetles Carabus coriaceus and Carabus nemoralis, respectively, n = 3 and n = 4), marked beforehand with PIT (passive integrated transponder) tags, were recorded when they crossed these detectors. This allowed individual trajectories, including crossing speed, to be estimated. Results: We found that 12 of the 13 toads and 3 of the 7 ground beetles successfully crossed the entire wildlife passage of 7 m long. The detection rate of each detector varied from 8.33 to 100%, with a mean of 52.08%. All individuals were recorded by at least one detector. We observed high variability in the crossing characteristics of toads (mean transit duration = 41 min and 15 s ± 25 min) and ground beetles (6 h 11 min ± 3 h 30 min). The system provided information on precise trajectories (e.g., crossing speed, U-turns, distance travelled in the tunnel, proportion of individuals reaching the exit, etc.) for each individual, in a context of tunnel crossing. Conclusion: The system allowed us to record small animal behaviour in the context of tunnel crossing in which other types of tracking (e.g. radio-tracking) or detection (e.g. camera traps) are not effective. It also opens the possibility for a range of experiments that would contribute to a better understanding of the behaviour of small animals in tunnels, allowing a comparison of tunnel characteristics (such as size, building material, substrate, etc.) with the aim of increasing wildlife use of the tunnel and proposing guidelines for the construction and maintenance of these mitigation measures.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Automatic detection of small PIT-tagged animals using wildlife crossings

Testud

Vergnes

Cordier³

et al. 2019

Anim Biotelemetry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…They have become an important wildlife research tool; the decreasing cost gives researchers additional opportunities to monitor and reach a larger number of wildlife populations. Traditional approaches, such as visual, capture and trapping methods, can be labor-intensive and can require hundreds or thousands of person hours; whereas, camera traps can multiply the number of observers and make them more cost efficient [18]. The use of this technology has increased to address questions of species' distribution, activity patterns, population densities [19,18], and among other questions.…”

Section: Camera Trapsmentioning

confidence: 99%

How Technology Can Transform Wildlife Conservation

Pacheco¹

2019

Green Technologies to Improve the Environment on Earth

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Wildlife is under threat from various kinds of human activities, such as habitat destruction, illegal wildlife trade, spread of invasive species and diseases, and from the human impact on the Earth's climate, which is changing the nature of wild habitats. Advances in technology give conservationists, scientists, and the general public the advantage to better understand the animals, their habitats, and the threats they can face. In this chapter, I provide a review of the benefits of the use of technology to animal ecology and conservation. Two major approaches are being recognized to conserve threatened and endangered wildlife species. The first encompasses protecting the species within their habitat, and the second involves breeding and caring individual species ex situ. The use of technological applications in captivity, such as satellite imaging and assisted breeding technologies, is focused to enhance animal welfare and to influence zoo visitors' awareness of conservation-related behavior. Given the increasing demands on protecting wildlife, it seems a fair time for us to pause and ask what could be the best way to use technological innovations and to stimulate a closer collaboration among conservation practitioners, animal behaviorists, biologists, computer and system scientists, and engineers, to mention but a few.

show abstract

“…Camera-traps have become an increasingly useful tool for detecting various vertebrates and answering a range of research questions [4]. Although camera-traps are used mostly to detect mammals their utility for detecting reptiles generally and squamates specifically has recently grown [5]. For reptiles, camera-traps have been principally used to monitor individual squamate species (e.g.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Camera-traps are a cost-effective method for surveying terrestrial squamates: A comparison with artificial refuges and pitfall traps

et al. 2020

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

IntroductionFundamental data on the distributions, diversity, and threat status of terrestrial snakes and lizards (hereafter squamates) is limited. This is due to the cryptic nature of species in this faunal group, and to limitations in the effectiveness of the survey methods used to detect these species. Camera-traps are a useful tool for detecting numerous vertebrate species, yet their use for detecting squamates has been limited. Here, we apply recent methodological advancements in camera-trapping and assessed the utility of camera-traps for inventorying a squamate assemblage by comparing camera-trapping survey results with two widely used labour-intensive methods: artificial refuges and pitfall traps. MethodsWe conducted a 74-day survey using camera-traps and, concurrently, four by four-day surveys using labour-intensive methods. Given the duration and three detection methods, we compared seven variants of survey protocol, including using each method alone or all methods simultaneously. We compared both the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of each survey protocol by estimating the number of species detected at the transect level, and by calculating the costs of conducting those surveys. ResultsWe found the camera-trapping survey was most cost-effective, costing 687 AUD (CI 534-912) per squamate species detected, compared with the 2975 AUD (CI 2103-4486) per squamate species detected with the labour-intensive methods. Using all methods together was less cost-effective than using camera-traps alone. Additionally, there was a 99%

show abstract

A frontier in the use of camera traps: surveying terrestrial squamate assemblages

Cited by 22 publications

References 88 publications

Automatic detection of small PIT-tagged animals using wildlife crossings

Automatic detection of small PIT-tagged animals using wildlife crossings

How Technology Can Transform Wildlife Conservation

Camera-traps are a cost-effective method for surveying terrestrial squamates: A comparison with artificial refuges and pitfall traps

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About