Comparing In-Person Versus Camera Monitoring of Shorebird Reproductive Success

Abstract

Shorebird reproductive success monitoring often relies on surveys of nest and brood survival. However, conclusions may be inaccurate due to the challenges of gathering and interpreting evidence of nest and brood fate. We tested the efficacy of in-person versus camera-based monitoring to quantify productivity and evaluate threats to reproductive success of American Oystercatchers (Haematopus palliatus) and Piping Plovers (Charadrius melodus) at Metompkin Island, Virginia. We deployed 73 cameras using three set-ups: at nests, at brood sites, and along a transect. The same areas were also surveyed in-person approximately once per week. Camera monitoring confirmed nest fate where in-person monitors could not determine fate from field evidence and provided insight to the effectiveness of mammalian predator removal. However, cameras failed to capture causes of mortality for mobile chicks and did not consistently document chicks where in-person monitoring confirmed successful broods. Cameras produced large quantities of data requiring 63.5-315 hours to review, depending on camera set-up. We found cameras were useful for validating conclusions from in-person monitoring, highlighting threats that surveys missed, and characterizing the predator community. Managers should consider the tradeoff between potential benefits and required effort of camera monitoring when deciding which method would be effective for meeting management goals.