Camera Traps Can Be Heard and Seen by Animals

Meek, Paul D.; Ballard, Guy; Fleming, Peter J. S.; Schaefer, Michael; Williams, Warwick; Falzon, Greg

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0110832

Cited by 110 publications

(99 citation statements)

References 46 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…However, video systems are surely less disturbing than camera traps, as the permanent recording emits continuous noises and lights, thus allowing habituation. Camera trap disturbances could also prevent animals from using wildlife crossings (Meek et al., 2014b). …”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A comparison of camera trap and permanent recording video camera efficiency in wildlife underpasses

Jumeau

Petrod²,

Handrich

2017

Ecology and Evolution

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the current context of biodiversity loss through habitat fragmentation, the effectiveness of wildlife crossings, installed at great expense as compensatory measures, is of vital importance for ecological and socio‐economic actors. The evaluation of these structures is directly impacted by the efficiency of monitoring tools (camera traps…), which are used to assess the effectiveness of these crossings by observing the animals that use them. The aim of this study was to quantify the efficiency of camera traps in a wildlife crossing evaluation. Six permanent recording video systems sharing the same field of view as six Reconyx HC600 camera traps installed in three wildlife underpasses were used to assess the exact proportion of missed events (event being the presence of an animal within the field of view), and the error rate concerning underpass crossing behavior (defined as either Entry or Refusal). A sequence of photographs was triggered by either animals (true trigger) or artefacts (false trigger). We quantified the number of false triggers that had actually been caused by animals that were not visible on the images (“false” false triggers). Camera traps failed to record 43.6% of small mammal events (voles, mice, shrews, etc.) and 17% of medium‐sized mammal events. The type of crossing behavior (Entry or Refusal) was incorrectly assessed in 40.1% of events, with a higher error rate for entries than for refusals. Among the 3.8% of false triggers, 85% of them were “false” false triggers. This study indicates a global underestimation of the effectiveness of wildlife crossings for small mammals. Means to improve the efficiency are discussed.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A comparison of camera trap and permanent recording video camera efficiency in wildlife underpasses

Jumeau

Petrod²,

Handrich

2017

Ecology and Evolution

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…All cameras were chosen for their infrared flash, which is likely to be less conspicuous to cats than a white flash (Glen et al 2013; but see also Meek et al 2014b). Vegetation was cleared to a height of 5 cm where necessary to provide a clear view of animals in the detection zone and to avoid possible false triggers caused by moving branches or foliage (Kelly & Holub 2008;Taylor et al 2013).…”

Section: Study Area and Field Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A comparison of horizontal versus vertical camera placement to detect feral cats and mustelids

Nichols¹,

Glen²,

Garvey³

et al. 2017

NZ J Ecol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Invasive predators are a threat to biodiversity in New Zealand. However, they are often difficult to monitor because of the animals' cryptic, mobile behaviour and low densities. Camera traps are increasingly being used to monitor wildlife, but until recently have been used mainly for large species. We aimed to determine the optimal camera alignment (horizontal or vertical) for detecting feral cats (Felis catus) and mustelids (Mustela furo, M. erminea and M. nivalis). We deployed 20 pairs of cameras, each pair with one horizontal and one vertical camera. We compared the number of photos of target species, non-target species, and false triggers (i.e. camera triggered with no animal present) between camera orientations. Horizontally oriented cameras captured approximately 1.5 times as many images of the target species compared with vertically oriented cameras, and also detected more non-target animals. Orientation did not have a significant effect on the number of false triggers.

show abstract

“…Additionally, these camera traps are equipped with motion and/or heat sensors that reduce the time of video monitoring without activity in the nest and power consumption, and use infrared light for night vision that replace the incandescent flashes of light that can scare nocturnal predators and interfere with the predation events (Meek et al 2014). The camera traps also print relevant data on photographs and videos, such as time, date, and temperature (O'Brien and Kinnaird 2008).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Testing camera traps as a potential tool for detecting nest predation of birds in a tropical rainforest environment

Ribeiro‐Silva¹,

Perrella²,

Biagolini-Jr.³

et al. 2018

Zoologia

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ABSTRACT. Identification of the predators of bird nests is essential to test ecological and evolutionary hypotheses and to make practical management decisions. A variety of nest monitoring devices have been proposed but many remain difficult to set up in the field. The aim of this study was to test camera traps as a potential tool to study predation of natural nests in a tropical rainforest environment. Specifically, we registered the predators, assessed their size range, and we compared the use of one and two cameras per nest. Of 122 nests from 24 bird species, 45 (37%) were depredated, and the cameras recorded the predator species in 29 of the total of depredated nests (64%). We identified predators in eight of 16 depredated nests (50%) in which we used one camera trap per nest, and we identified predators in 21 of 29 depredated nests (72%) when we used two camera traps per nest. The predators included six species of birds and six species of mammals, with body masses varying from 20 g to 16.5 kg. Causes for 10 of the 16 detection failures were identified and are discussed. These results suggest that camera traps are viable tools to investigate nest predation in a tropical rainforest area.

show abstract

Camera Traps Can Be Heard and Seen by Animals

Cited by 110 publications

References 46 publications

A comparison of camera trap and permanent recording video camera efficiency in wildlife underpasses

A comparison of camera trap and permanent recording video camera efficiency in wildlife underpasses

A comparison of horizontal versus vertical camera placement to detect feral cats and mustelids

Testing camera traps as a potential tool for detecting nest predation of birds in a tropical rainforest environment

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About